yank unary '+'?

[Don]

KennyTM~ wrote:
> On Dec 7, 09 05:12, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I am completely underwhelmed by 1-6 and have strong arguments against
>> each, but "frankly, my dear" I have bigger problems than that. I have
>> exactly zero valid reasons I could mention in TDPL, and that's my litmus
>> test. I find the operator utterly useless. If '+' stays in, then call it
>> horsetrading but the occasionally useful '^^=' must also be in.
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> There would be zero reason to explain 1.0 vs 1.00, 1.0e2 vs 1.0e+2, and 
> 0xabc vs 0xABC vs 0Xabc vs 0XABC too.
> 
> And I thought there isn't ^^= yet just because Don's patch was only a 
> proof-of-concept thing. (Currently 3*4^^2 doesn't event produce the 
> expected result.) ^^= will be in, but that's irrelevant.

Not so. My patch included ^^=, but Walter stripped it out because he 
wasn't convinced there were enough use cases for it.