Talk:Exponentiation with infix operators in (or operating on) the base: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→what should non infix languages do?: added wording.) |
m (→Title too confused and long: changed one word.) |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:: There already is a Rosetta Code task: [[Operator_precedence]] which does the above suggestion. But it doesn't really demonstrate the problem concerning exponentiation, at least in that three pseudo-codes have already been shown (used on Rosetta Code) and interpreted incorrectly. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 14:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
:: There already is a Rosetta Code task: [[Operator_precedence]] which does the above suggestion. But it doesn't really demonstrate the problem concerning exponentiation, at least in that three pseudo-codes have already been shown (used on Rosetta Code) and interpreted incorrectly. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 14:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
:: A general operator precedence wasn't the goal of the task, but specifically exponentiation when a unary (negative) operator was being used (or specified). This was the case in which this ambiguity was actually being used (specified) in the preamble of three Rosetta Code tasks. I know because I kept getting the wrong results until I realized that some languages must be behaving differently than the languages that I know (as far as infix operators). So I named/created |
:: A general operator precedence wasn't the goal of the task, but specifically exponentiation when a unary (negative) operator was being used (or specified). This was the case in which this ambiguity was actually being used (specified) in the preamble of three Rosetta Code tasks. I know because I kept getting the wrong results until I realized that some languages must be behaving differently than the languages that I know (as far as infix operators). So I named/created this task to be as specific as possible to test/demonstrate just one thing, not the whole enchilada. This situation, other than chained exponentiations (x**y**z) are (it seems) two of the cases where it is known to get misinterpreted (or at least, implemented differently). I didn't want to this task to get too general and loose focus of the (minor) difficulty that had already occurred on Rosetta Code, at least in my case. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 14:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::Should a ref be added to [http://www.rosettacode.org/mw/index.php?title=Talk:Parsing/RPN_to_infix_conversion&action=edit§ion=5]? Or should that task actually address the problem?--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 15:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
:::Should a ref be added to [http://www.rosettacode.org/mw/index.php?title=Talk:Parsing/RPN_to_infix_conversion&action=edit§ion=5]? Or should that task actually address the problem?--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 15:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |