"Data Banks" <da_### [at] ihugcomau> wrote:
> > Yes, you've got it now.  This was changed quite awhile ago for reasons
> > that
> > esacape me at the moment.
> > -tgq
> >
> I thought I'd post the question, but while I waited I decided I'd re-read
> the manual (catch up on some of the changes since I started learning with
> 3.1) and found it. I'll get used to it but I did like the ^ version
> personally

I liked it too and never had a problem with precedence order: when in doubt,
use brackets to force precedence.  I usually use brackets where not
necessary anyways to make equations easier to parse quickly visually when
looking at them.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

"Trevor G Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:web.4512b824c43a9bccc150d4c10@news.povray.org...
> "Data Banks" <da_### [at] ihugcomau> wrote:
>> > Yes, you've got it now.  This was changed quite awhile ago for reasons
>> > that
>> > esacape me at the moment.
>> > -tgq
>> >
>> I thought I'd post the question, but while I waited I decided I'd re-read
>> the manual (catch up on some of the changes since I started learning with
>> 3.1) and found it. I'll get used to it but I did like the ^ version
>> personally
>
> I liked it too and never had a problem with precedence order: when in 
> doubt,
> use brackets to force precedence.  I usually use brackets where not
> necessary anyways to make equations easier to parse quickly visually when
> looking at them.
>
> -tgq
>
I use the "brackets to force order" method, too. And yes, it DOES make it 
easier mentally :) Especially when you've only been getting a few hours 
sleep every second night (and none the other night) for weeks - no wonder I 
couldn't follow the other branch of this thread!!

Post a reply to this message