Pow Expressions - not worth the juice?

[user1234]

On Tuesday, 3 February 2026 at 17:25:10 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3 February 2026 at 17:10:13 UTC, user1234 wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 3 February 2026 at 16:39:59 UTC, user1234 wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 3 February 2026 at 15:51:05 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply but that confirms what I initially 
>>> thought. Personally I see a little problem with the 
>>> surrouding percent symbols (i.e not a progress compared to 
>>> call syntax, they are equally unperfect) but essentially 
>>> that's not a criticism about R designers choices. Just not 
>>> fan you see.
>>
>> well to be completly honest, it's nice to be able to write `a 
>> %∩% b` but the percent syms waste the whole thing I think.
>
> Walter would never go for unlimited overloading.

I would not either, for the simple reason that you would have to 
run the sema of every import known. That breaks a bit the "adhoc" 
compilation model. This would add complexity. For now this is 
simple. Custom type ? let's see if that custom type implements 
the opover. dead simple.