Re: Re: [vote] pow-operator
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Tjerk Meesters
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Kris,
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Kris Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>> That said, if there are other reasons for voting 'no' besides
>>> associativity, feel free to shoot me an email or discuss it on the list.
>>>
>>
>> What did it for me was the lower precedence for the unary minus. I don't
>> want to have another language that thinks a negative number squared is a
>> negative number. I understand and respect your reasoning as outlined in
>> the RFC, but this is a deal-breaker for me.
>>
>
> I've had a short discussion with Anthony about this and he convinced me
> that I was indeed wrong about my "unary minus" reasoning; therefore I have
> updated the RFC to reflect that. So:
>
I'm a little bit confused.
Are you modifying the poll, and the rfc itself, in the middle of a vote?
-Hannes
Thread (15 messages)