🚀 go-pugleaf

karl@ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes

 > >(2) I think we could actually get ** as the exponentiation operator.
 > >[By defining `**' to have semantics of TIMES FETCH when the right operand
 > >is a pointer]

 > I considered this when I wrote my exponentiation essay.  I decided that it
 > might be possible, but it's way too confusing!  This would be a kludge of the
 > highest order.  It's much better to use syntax that's not already taken --
 > I've adopted "*^", as suggested by someone else some years ago.  (A hybrid of
 > "**" and "^", sort of.)

Of course it is a hack. It is a compatibility hack of the first order,
but I see few TECHNICAL problems with it.

and  rr@world.std.com (Robert I Ransbottom) writes

 > I agree ** is confusing, given the potential frequency of both "dat**ptr" and
 > "dat**dat" it seems like a waste to deciphering such.  The proponents
 > of **expon want a convenience. 
 > 
 > I think that ^^ would be more satisfying to both pointer-ers and math-ers.  
 > 
 >     1. Its not already taken!
 >     .   .   .    .      .
 >     n. Its easier to type than Karl's *^. 

The reason I mentioned ** is that I think that every alternative mentioned
so far has something wrong with it. I see ^ as xor and ^^ bothers me.
As it happens *^ doesn't bother me but my feeling was that 99% of the
deamand for an exponentiation operator comes from current or past Fortran
users and - in my experience - they always ask for ** and are unsatisfied
with the explanations of why they can't have that syntax.

How frequent is a**p anyway? (has anyone got any data?) How confusing
would it really be? Many people use spaces to clarify (to their eyes,
if not to everyone else's) code, e.g. a * *p. Also, not all overloading
creates confusion, especially when identifier names are chosen with
a minimum of care (want would x**e mean? a**xptr mean?). I doubt the
case is clear cut.

I am not arguing that ** is THE right solution, but that given the
demand for it and the lack of ginuinely nice alternatives ** should
not be written off without a thought and/or in the belief that it
is technically infeasible to provide it.