🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4390:Dec1003:50:4790@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>> To use LaTex format, one writes 
>> exponentiation as x^{y} in normal mathematical notation
>
>I see no relations between a**b, pow(a,b), a^{b}, and superscript
>notation other than that Fortran and LaTeX use (different) infix, C uses
>prefix, and math uses superscript.
>
>So your argument reduces to ``If LaTeX uses an infix notation, then any
>infix notation is more standard than any prefix notation.'' This is
>ridiculous.
>

Whoa!  You misinterpreted what I said.  I was using LaTex notation just
as a device for expressing 
                                y
                               x

on the screen.  I was not suggesting that because LaTex does something
that it must be right.  Come on now.  All I was saying was that infix
notation is what mathematicians use for exponentiation so it strikes
me that if you are going to worry over whether infix or prefix is
more "natural", the infix notation is in this case.  Honestly I think
the issue is overblown.

>Why? Let's try to use logic, not handwaving. Also note that Jim and I
>are talking about ``standard mathematical notation.''

I hope my previous paragraph clears this up.

>> >Most professional Fortran programmers groan when they hear that
>> >Fortran 8X (oops, 9X) has a > b. Maybe ``standard mathematical
>> >notation'' isn't as important as familiar notation...
>> We must know different professional Fortran programmers.  I have never 
>> heard anyone make this comment.
>
>This was the uniform reaction of a large roomful of Fortran programmers
>at Brookhaven National Laboratory in 1987 at a presentation of Fortran
>8X, and I've heard the same opinion from many other people. Who's your
>source?

I have heard alot of groaning about Fortran Extended being too big, too
much like Ada, etc...  I have NEVER heard a room full of Fortran 
programmers complain about it however because it uses < instead of
.lt. (which is what you said).

John