On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Don already covered that. Floats have nan, so that would be a nan. >> 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. Doin' my best here. --bb
