Pow operator precedence

[Chad J]

On 01/14/2012 02:56 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
> On 1/13/2012 5:39 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 1/13/2012 11:25 AM, Manu wrote:
>>> Fair call. I buy this argument. If there is a precedent set by
>>> (multiple) other
>>> languages towards this precedence (and none against), then so be it.
>>> If there were a vote though, I'd vote for it being deprecated on
>>> grounds of
>>> offering nothing to the language more than confusion.
>>
>> I suspect that pow may be better off as a compiler intrinsic.
> I posted this once but it seemed to go ignored, so I'll post again ;)
>
> I think a WARNING is the best route.
> Kind of like when VC++ cries in pain when you say something like "a << b
> + c": http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/5d2e57c5.aspx

Eh, unless things have changed in the past few years, D isn't really 
into warnings.  I'm fine with it being an error though.