Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!amd!amdcad!amdimage!prls!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: unary +
Message-ID: <1245@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Apr-86 16:35:29 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.1245
Posted: Mon Apr 14 16:35:29 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Apr-86 13:10:01 EST
References: <2323@brl-smoke.ARPA> <687@bentley.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 15


In article <687@bentley.UUCP> kwh@bentley.UUCP writes:
>In article <2323@brl-smoke.ARPA> HARGED%ti-eg.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA writes:
>>Folks, no two ways about it: "a + +(b + c)" looks very strange (it looks
>>like a typographical error), particularly when it is *required* to
>>accomplish what most people intuitively assume "a + (b + c)" will
>>accomplish.  From a human factors standpoint, this proposal is a
>>disaster.

Let me repeat my suggestion that "a + [b + c]" be used for this purpose.
It isn't *obvious* what it is intended to mean differently from "a + (b + c)",
but it at least doesn't look like a typographical error.  Use of brackets
of arbitrary shape or size has a long mathematical tradition.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108