unary +

[Eugene D. Brooks III]

In article <1227 at mtx5a.UUCP> esg at mtx5a.UUCP (ed gokhman) writes:
>The ANSI draft makes case for the unary + operator ...
>
>Question: what is the rational for not saying that an
>	implementation *must* respect parenthesising
>	as intended rather then providing an extra
>	operator simply to state "i mean these parenthesis" ?

It was probably done so as not to break old code :-)