Bill Baxter wrote:
Negative exponent values are the only ones with an issue. You can't even write square-root etc with pow using only integers. The argument would have to be a float to even express that, so there is no issue. int^^float should be a float just like int/float is a float.
But -1^^0.5 is the imaginary constant! Something definitely doesn't add up. Are you sure you meant int^^float to be float? And what's the deal with the ongoing parallel exegesis with division? A division of reals doesn't result in a complex.
So the only things left are those of the form x^^-y. or 1/(x^^y). I don't see a reason to go any further than translating it to exactly that. And that's just division, so the %-like operator corresponding to that is just % itself ( or rather 1%(x^^y) ) I think Don was creating a tempest in a teapot. I don't think any of his proposed alternatives besides treating it as integer division really make sense. They are inconsistent with the rest of D, and so don't merit further consideration unless the behavior of 1/2 is also on the table.
To quote a living classic, when disagreeing with Don, you better have your ducks in a row.
Andrei
