Re: [q-lang-users] Exponentiation operator

[John C. <co...@cc...>]

Albert Graef scripsit:

> Now I'm reconsidering this. Maybe it would be better if ^ actually 
> returned an Int where this is possible, and a Float otherwise? (This 
> wouldn't be possible in a language with static typing like Haskell, of 
> course, but Q doesn't have this problem.) A similar issue arises with 
> the definition of ^ for Rational. Should Rational ^ Int be a Rational? 
> Or a Float, like Rational ^ Rational and Rational ^ Float are?

I'd split ^ into two operators, one to return a Float (perhaps ^) always,
and one to return an exact result where possible, a Float where necessary
(perhaps **, perhaps pow).

> A related question is whether rational arithmetic should return an Int
> instead of a Rational when the denominator of the result is 1.

I think it should, yes.  And likewise when the numerator is 0.

I also think, for the same reasons, that a complex operator should
return a Real when the imaginary part is 0 (but not 0.0), for reasons
stated before.

-- 
Knowledge studies others / Wisdom is self-known;      John Cowan
Muscle masters brothers / Self-mastery is bone;       co...@cc...
Content need never borrow / Ambition wanders blind;   http://ccil.org/~cowan
Vitality cleaves to the marrow / Leaving death behind.    --Tao 33 (Bynner)