Using Power of 2 numbers to represent types
Let’s say that we have some values, represented by power of 2:
Using Power of 2 numbers to represent types
Let’s say that we have some values, represented by power of 2:
Operator distributivity in expressions – syntactic sugar
When writing boolean expressions out, you often have to use something of the type:
Operator distributivity in expressions – syntactic sugar
When writing boolean expressions out, you often have to use something of the type:
Operator distributivity in expressions – syntactic sugar
When writing boolean expressions out, you often have to use something of the type:
Operator distributivity in expressions – syntactic sugar
When writing boolean expressions out, you often have to use something of the type:
Should ** bind more tightly than !, ~?
Designing a programming language, I’m including the ** exponentiation operator. In Fortran and Python, the two languages I know of which have this operator, it binds more tightly than unary minus, which makes sense for practicality as well as tradition.
Should ** bind more tightly than !, ~?
Designing a programming language, I’m including the ** exponentiation operator. In Fortran and Python, the two languages I know of which have this operator, it binds more tightly than unary minus, which makes sense for practicality as well as tradition.
Should ** bind more tightly than !, ~?
Designing a programming language, I’m including the ** exponentiation operator. In Fortran and Python, the two languages I know of which have this operator, it binds more tightly than unary minus, which makes sense for practicality as well as tradition.
Why isn’t exponentiation hardware-implemented?
Why is there no exponentiation operation in hardware, even though many languages have builtin operators for it?