A while ago, I was arguing that the C++ exponentiation operator
should, to preserve ordinary mathematical meaning (and to preserve the
semantics of exponentiation in FORTRAN), have a higher precedence than
unary plus and minus.  I now realize that I was mistaken; it is
impossible to do this without badly breaking something.

Unary + and - have the same precedence as unary * and &.  We certainly
don't want an exponentiation operator to have a higher precedence than
those, and, of course, we can't break existing code by changing the
precedence of unary + and -.  There is no choice but to say that
exponentiation has a higher precedence than *, /, and %, but a lower
precedence than the unary operators.

It is clear to me that this is the wrong precedence, but, well, it's
just a minor blemish, and it is not the only blemish in the C/C++
precedence table, and compilers can issue warnings when it looks like
users are doing the wrong thing.  Some flaws you just have to live
with.
--
Matthew Austern              I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band of
(510) 644-2618               of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu    taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
austern@theorm.lbl.gov       multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
austern@lbl.bitnet      me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.

In article <MATT.92Jul20112356@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:

> There is no choice but to say that
> exponentiation has a higher precedence than *, /, and %, but a lower
> precedence than the unary operators.

Hm... Why couldn't it have the same precedence as -> and .  ?
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@europa.att.com