Originally Posted by EarlyMon
By saying that f(x)=2*x, you've said that implied parens that didn't exist in the originally malformed expression are in effect. In other words, you've re-expressed the problem as:
Malformed expressions can only be evaluated on their face.
Well I disagree with your disagreement! So there!
edit: to explain myself a little better, no, i'm not saying f(x) = 2*x. In fact, I'm saying that's the problem-- OTHER people are saying that, but it's not true. f(x) is a function, that is f of x (f is a function of x), meaning the variable f is applied to the variable x. In our equation, we would apply 2 to 3, which in effect is multiplying it... but it's not the same as saying f(x) = f*x (though isolated, those equations are redundant). The problem is that USUALLY creating a function simply means multiplying it, so we've been trained to think that 2(3) = 2*3. But it isn't.