> Le 26 août 2015 à 00:43, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> a écrit : > > When the costs were minor, it was ok that the benefits were minor. Given > significant costs, we need to ask: >
While I don't have a strong opinion about the cost of the proposed modified grammar, I protest that the cost of the previous version wasn't anything near minor (although it was probably an oversight): having `-x**y` producing (literally) the opposite result of what is expected, and even only half of the time, is a high cost in terms of bugs produced and debugging man-hours lost. —Claude > Why do we need ** ? What great benefit does it provide? If nothing > compelling, then this proposal has lost consensus. > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Claude Pache <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > Le 25 août 2015 à 03:22, Jason Orendorff <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Jason Orendorff > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > P.S. Admittedly it might be a good idea to rename "UnaryExpression" if > > we put a binary operator in there. > > > > -j > > "RightAssociativeExpression"? > > —Claude > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
