just noticed that Tamas already recommended that above. Just to reiterate I think this is the better way to resolve this particular issue. Christoph
On Monday, 5 January 2015 15:04:27 UTC, Eric Forgy wrote: > > Maybe its not so bad if you just always include * where it should be, i.e. > p = 1; 2*p+1 works fine. > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Christoph Ortner <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> For what it's worth, it always struck me is as odd that dropping the * >> for multiplication is allowed. Is it worth dropping this instead of the p, >> e notation? >> Christoph >> >> >
