proposed syntax change

[Lars T. Kyllingstad]

Daniel Keep wrote:
> 
> Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
>> Don wrote:
>>> The operator which is REALLY missing is exponentiation.
>>
>> I've been really missing that one.
>>
>> Which operators could be used for exponentiation? I've only ever seen
>> a**b and a^b used, but I think those are out of the question for D.
>>
>> -Lars
> 
> How about *^
> 
> ^ isn't valid as a unary operator, thus a*^b cannot be mistaken for a*(^b)
> 
> It's a bit of a cop-out combining the two, but should be unambiguous.

Yeah, not too bad. Would a^^b work?

-Lars