14 Feb
2006
14 Feb
'06
9:34 a.m.
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
one guy thinks that atan2 is unary but that +,-,* are binary. so what?
wow. it seems like i really made it into (another) flame war.
please, all of you, be assured that it is not my intent to change the behaviour of [atan2] to be a unary operator. (correction: my intent is to have a usable [atan2] which unfortunately it is not - due to the incompatibility in behaviour introduced with the change from 0.37 to 0.38: probably one of the worst things that ever happened to pd)
i only wanted to point out that i _can_ understand why [atan2] does not behave like an ordinary binop. obviously you dont.
my ability to understand does not imply that this ("understood") behaviour was intended by miller.
mfg.asdr. IOhannes