From -6423727368031514295 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,9a6b7da9ba54eaea X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-07-06 13:39:15 PST Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!udel!princeton!allegra!alice!ark From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: C++ Language Extensions Message-ID: <25953@alice.att.com> Date: 6 Jul 93 19:24:38 GMT Article-I.D.: alice.25953 References: <212tii$5nb@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <215t2r$sv4@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <25936@alice.att.com> <25939@alice.att.com> Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP () Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ Lines: 21 In article schouten@sp95.csrd.uiuc.edu writes: > You're chasing shadows here. As I and others have pointed out, this > is irrelevant becase; 1) All these numerical restrictions equally > whether you're talking about an operator or a `pow' function and > 2) you can make exactly the same arguments about * w.r.t. +. Your > points just don't make sense in this context. I understand that there are some people who just want an exponentiation operator and don't care what results it gives, but I don't think there are enough of those to form a consensus in the committee. > Oh come on! > Surely you aren't seriously suggesting that it's not feasible because > we've already used up all the characters? There are lots of possibilities. So far, no one has come up with even one possibility that enough people on the committee like to be willing to approve it. -- --Andrew Koenig ark@research.att.com