Talk:Exponentiation with infix operators in (or operating on) the base: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(Questions.) |
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→Title too confused and long: my two cents) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Title too confused and long== |
==Title too confused and long== |
||
Suggest work out an acceptable option and then change the task name. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 05:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
Suggest work out an acceptable option and then change the task name. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 05:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
:Looks to me like the actual task is: "Demonstrate operator precedence" using exponentiation and unary negation as its required operators. I would propose "Operator precedence" as a task title... but that's just me. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 13:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==what should non infix languages do? == |
==what should non infix languages do? == |
||
Revision as of 13:55, 3 November 2020
Title too confused and long
Suggest work out an acceptable option and then change the task name. --Paddy3118 (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Looks to me like the actual task is: "Demonstrate operator precedence" using exponentiation and unary negation as its required operators. I would propose "Operator precedence" as a task title... but that's just me. --Thundergnat (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)