From 7457996787020278106
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,9a6b7da9ba54eaea
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,9a6b7da9ba54eaea
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-06-25 07:52:54 PST
Xref: gmd.de comp.lang.c++:25174 comp.std.c++:2873
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!purdue!news.cs.indiana.edu!babbage.ece.uc.edu!uckbv5.ece.uc.edu!cpeck
From: cpeck@uckbv5.ece.uc.edu (Charles Peck)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: C++ Language Extensions
Date: 25 Jun 1993 13:46:36 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <20evjs$b77@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
References: <25697@alice.att.com> <25699@alice.att.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: uckbv5.ece.uc.edu

I have a question related to Bjarne Stroustrup's posting regarding extensions
to C++.  I haven't followed this group closely for about a year, so if the
subject is particularly well trodden, please forgive me (I did check to FAQ
first, just to be sure).

In article <25699@alice.att.com> bs@alice.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup) provides
many criteria for evaluating extensions.  He also lists extensions that have
been approved, rejected or withdrawn, and are pending or suggested.  One 
extension he lists as rejected or withdrawn is:

>    Exponentiation operator

My question is quite simple: Why?  Does anyone know the reasoning behind this?

I have seen many flare ups on this subject, with some apparently well 
conceived proposals.  My intention is not to instigate another of these 
debates.  Rather, my intention is simply to understand the reasoning of the 
committee.

Any insights will be appreciated,
Charles Peck
-- 
Charles Peck			ML #30
(513) 556-6297 			Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
cpeck@uckbv1.ece.uc.edu 	University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221