From 252718078153412326
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: 1993-06-27 09:03:47 PST
Xref: gmd.de comp.lang.c++:25249 comp.std.c++:2881
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!network.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!metro!news
From: maxtal@physics.su.OZ.AU (John Max Skaller)
Subject: Re: C++ Language Extensions
Message-ID: <1993Jun27.155845.28679@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
Sender: news@ucc.su.OZ.AU
Nntp-Posting-Host: physics.su.oz.au
Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia
References: <25697@alice.att.com> <25699@alice.att.com> <20evjs$b77@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1993 15:58:45 GMT
Lines: 36

In article <20evjs$b77@babbage.ece.uc.edu> cpeck@uckbv5.ece.uc.edu (Charles Peck) writes:
>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been approved, rejected or withdrawn, and are pending or suggested.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extension he lists as rejected or withdrawn is: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.
>

	The exponentiation operator supposedly had limited appeal 
(specialised for numerical work), had difficulties 
in definition, and provided only one advantage 
that 'pow' does not: clean syntax.

	This wasnt considered enough to justify an extension.
However, one of the ideas in the proposal, a specific version
of pow that accepts an integral index, will probably make it
into the standard library.

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
	Maxtal Pty Ltd,		    CSERVE:10236.1703 
        6 MacKay St ASHFIELD,	    Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21 
        NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA