Talk:Exponentiation order: Difference between revisions

Talk:Exponentiation order (view source)

200 bytes added , 10 years ago

→‎Functions: cleared up what I meant when replying to an implied double negative.

Anonymous user

Revision as of 19:09, 18 March 2014 (view source) rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger (→‎Functions: added a comment about POW.) ← Older edit		Revision as of 19:13, 18 March 2014 (view source) rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger (→‎Functions: cleared up what I meant when replying to an implied double negative.) Newer edit →
Line 3: So it has to be an operator? A "pow" function is not allowed? --[[User:Mwn3d\|Mwn3d]] ([[User talk:Mwn3d\|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC) : No, ~~not~~and atthen ~~all~~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,   '''532'''   is swimming with vagueness. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 19:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)