Anonymous user
Talk:Exponentiation order: Difference between revisions
→Functions: REXX order dependent on implementation?
(→Task necessary?: One task is enough) |
(→Functions: REXX order dependent on implementation?) |
||
Line 15:
::::::: Which is one reason to show examples. Without examples of different computer languages, we'd have to resort to researching each computer language to find this information, and in the case of REXX (and probably other language docs), the documentation doesn't mention specifically the result of a**b**c. As soon as other REXX "derivatives" (in the sense that they were developed later), APL (+ derivatives), and other computer languages, more differences will show up. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 23:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::If the docs don't say anything about the order of evaluation, it's implementation-dependent, isn't it? Shouldn't you then mention for the REXX entry which implementation produced the output? --[[User:AndiPersti|Andreas Perstinger]] ([[User talk:AndiPersti|talk]]) 08:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
:When home computers where new and there seemed to be so many implementations of BASIC, associativity was all over the place. I found out from this task that Pythons naive reduce example doesn't give the 'proper' associativity for example. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 07:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
| |||