Pow Expressions - not worth the juice?

[user1234]

On Tuesday, 3 February 2026 at 18:34:01 UTC, Richard (Rikki) 
Andrew Cattermole wrote:
> On 04/02/2026 6:46 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 2/3/2026 7:11 AM, jmh530 wrote:
>>> where the basically the `"op"` can be anything so long as it 
>>> is delimited in a form like "%op%"
>> 
>> In D that would be like:
>> ```d
>> x.op(y)
>> ```
>
> "op" there isn't meant to be a valid identifier.
>
> It would translate to: ``a.opBinary!"op"(b)`` or 
> ``a.opUnary!"op"``
>
> I don't like this delineated approach, but there are tables for 
> Unicode math binary/unary op's around.
>
> Main issue is a character can be both.
>
> However given D is not a mathematical language, its 
> introduction is questionable at best.

I see indeed a lot of potential disapoinment.

people wants to be able to write `a ∩ b`. But `∩` is not an 
regulatory identifier character (I remember you've recently 
worked on that problem). The R lang solution would not even work. 
`a "∩" b` or something... just like the workaround in R.