NICE Eiffel Standards Group -- Library Committee Mailing List To post to list: NICE-ESG-Libs@atlanta.twr.com To send mail to the Chairman of the committee: NICE-ESG-Libs-chair@atlanta.twr.com Administrative matters (sign up, unsubscribe, mail problems, etc): NICE-ESG-Libs-request@atlanta.twr.com
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 95 16:27:59 PDT From: bertrand@vienna.eiffel.com (Bertrand Meyer) Subject: exponentiation + next_line To: NICE-ESG-Libs@atlanta.twr.com Sorry that you won't be in New York. Generality: in elementary (not particularly abstract algebra) an exponentiation operator is defined on all the basic mathematical sets - Z (integers) and R (reals), with some limitations on the last two (the number should not be negative if the exponent is non-integer). The need for a form accepting integer exponents only was described based on arguments drawn from computing science, not mathematics - i.e. the usefulness of having a fast computation in the integer case. This case may be more common in scientific computing, but it is not more general - it is more specialized. On the less important matter of `next_line': I feel unenthusiastic about `skip_to_next_line' which does not say ``input'' to me - it could be a skip to next line on output. Actually there is no ambiguity for output `put_next_line'. Here are a few proposals: - input_to_next_line - get_next_line - get_to_next_line - move_input_to_next_line The `get' forms have the advantages of being symmetric with `put' but could cause confusion in the mind of people for whom `get' is a synonym for `read'. The last form is clearest but probably too long. In the end I think I prefer the first. Other opinions or suggestions? -- BM
