Jump to content

Talk:Common operator notation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

ي

[Untitled]

Do programming languages actually exist where sin is a prefix operator? As far as I know, it's always a function requiring parentheses around its argument sin(x), thus avoiding the ambiguity mentioned in the article.
Herbee 11:37, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)

Yes. Haskell has such a function, as well as sin appearing as a postfix operator in the PostScript programming language. Dysprosia 11:55, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not to mention several BASIC dialects (not only Sinclair's or Hewlett Packard's) or ordinary scientific calculators (Canon, Sharp, most CASIOs etc) where sin 2π = 0, just as in mathematics (i.e. implicit multiplication goes before prefix operators).
Also, operators may well be regarded as functions in their own right... and many function-oriented ("functional") languages demand no parenthesis-syntax for an ordinary prefix-operator/function. You simply write sin x, just as in mathematics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.247.136 (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Common operator notation really a term in Computer Science? There's only 125 Google references, and almost all of those are to copies of this page. There is a commonality of operator notation among the computer languages descendent mostly from Fortran, but this page rambles on for quite a while without really capturing the essence of the idea. (Sorry for being vague, but this article's vague approach to its topic gave me a vague impression of vagueness.) Tom Duff 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The example at the end of -3! hints at how the uniry minus binds later than the !. I wonder if an example such as

-2^2 (or -2**2, depending on what plain ASCII notation one wants to follow), along with some sort of authoratative reference, would be useful to add to the page.

I wonder this because the algebraic result of -4 is not necessarility obvious to people who read the notation (I know that I've seen arguments in web forums/newsgroups/mailing lists over whether this should be -(2*2) or (-2*-2). It seems like specifically noting the correct algebraic interpretation would be worthwhile in the context of operation precendence and notation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.243.209.109 (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]