Talk:Exponentiation with infix operators in (or operating on) the base: Difference between revisions
Talk:Exponentiation with infix operators in (or operating on) the base (view source)
Revision as of 15:51, 3 November 2020
, 3 years ago→what should non infix languages do?: examples?
m (→Title too confused and long: added some wording.) |
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→what should non infix languages do?: examples?) |
||
Line 15:
: I might suggest they would add parenthesis or use whatever mechanism/method that would be most appropriate in that computer programming language. I say ''might'' as I have no idea what/how '''APL''' (and some other programming languages for instance) treat (or even has) infix operators. Take the case of: '''-4 + 6'''. Or, in the general case: '''-x''' (some operator) '''y''', where ''some operator'' may be a subset of what operators are supported for any one computer programming language. This was a problem that stopped me from adding '''REXX''' to a couple of Rosetta Code tasks because those tasks used '''\''' ('''not''', '''¬''', '''^''', '''~''', ''et al'') (and/or some other characters) in general expressions. '''PL/I''' and '''REXX''' (and I'm sure, others programming languaes as well) allow '''- 6 + - - 7''' (with or without the embedded blanks and/or the addition of grouping symbols [parentheses]) for instance, but multiple infix operators (and/or signs and/or logical '''nots''') wasn't the wide scope that I wanted to address for this Rosetta Code task. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 15:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
:: <blockquote><Quote>This was a problem that stopped me from adding REXX to a couple of Rosetta Code tasks because those tasks used \ (not, ¬, ^, ~, et al) (and/or some other characters) in general expressions.</End Quote></blockquote> Really? Which tasks? (Honest question. I really am curious.) In my experience, most tasks have quite a bit of leeway in ''how'' a particular language entry implements a solution and aren't so rigidly focused on exact syntax. In fact, I can't recall ''any'' off the top of my head that require specific syntax. That kind-of defeats the purpose a chrestomathy. Formatting... ok, yeah, there are some task authors who tend to specify very rigid requirements for output formatting, but again, that isn't syntax. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 15:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
| |||