Anonymous user
Talk:Exponentiation order: Difference between revisions
→Functions: vagueness?
(→Functions: cleared up what I meant when replying to an implied double negative.) |
(→Functions: vagueness?) |
||
Line 4:
: No, and then no. Er, I mean, it doesn't ''have'' to be, and yes, '''POW''' is allowed if there isn't an operator for exponentiation. I have no qualms about including the '''POW''' function in any case. But a function has no misinterpretation of what order the exponentiation is in, as in '''pow(x,y)'''. Of course, you could write '''pow(x, pow(y,z))''' (or something similar, depending on you or your language interpret the operator) to show this task's intention, but there is no ambiguity in function calls. Whereas, '''5**3**2''' is swimming with vagueness. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
:: Why? Somehow people don't find "a - b - c" swimming in vagueness. And in the languages I know, if there's an pow operator, 5**3**2 is always interpreted as 5**(3**2), just like in maths. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] ([[User talk:Ledrug|talk]]) 03:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
| |||