Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!udel!gatech!hao!ames!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Power operator?
Message-ID: <7014@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 9 Jan 88 10:04:40 GMT
References: <11169@brl-adm.ARPA> <10026@ut-sally.UUCP> <7007@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 16

In article <7007@brl-smoke.ARPA> I wrote:
>>      a ^^ b
>I think this is about as good a notation as we can get ...

However, as Karl pointer out, this would make a good logical exclusive-or
operator also, and I can see that the "strong argument" for exponentiation
would also apply, somewhat more weakly, to exclusive-or, which I've often
needed and have had to kludge ((a != 0) ^ (b != 0)).

You see what a can of worms is opened up, once you start admitting
extensions?  Or, to mix metaphors, once you let a foot get in the door?

>	messy_expression ** 2

Of course this Fortran notation should be changed to whatever for the
proposed C extension.