On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Waldemar Horwat <walde...@google.com> wrote:
> On 08/26/2015 15:08, Mark S. Miller wrote: > >> The force of that precedent is indeed what my objection is. The "yield" >> counter-example is interesting, but "yield" is an identifier not an >> operator symbol, and so does not as clearly fall within or shape operator >> expectations. >> >> If someone explains a compelling need for ** I would find that >> interesting. But until then... >> > > ** is a convenience, and that's the wrong criterion to apply here. If it > were, then we wouldn't have useful conveniences like Math.cosh or arrow > functions. > > I'd rather read > > a*x**3 + b*x**2 + c*x + d > > than > > a*Math.pow(x, 3) + b*Math.pow(x, 2) + c*x + d Ok, we have a benefit to evaluate. Brevity. With the example contrast between a*x**3 + b*x**2 + c*x + d and a*Math.pow(x, 3) + b*Math.pow(x, 2) + c*x + d Let's also apply Alexander's suggestion a*x.pow(3) + b*x.pow(2) + c*x + d To help us compare for brevity, and because I'm too lazy to count, I'm sending it in a fixed width font. -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss