[swift-evolution] [Draft] Resolving operator precedence conflicts
crk at akkyra.com
Wed Mar 9 13:10:44 CST 2016
> On Mar 8, 2016, at 1:52 PM, Austin Zheng <austinzheng at gmail.com> wrote:
> 'Fixity' already has a non-technical meaning ("the state of being unchanged and permanent"), and an unrelated technical one (a synonym for associativity; search "assocativity fixity operator" for examples). If we're using it in this different way, I respectfully submit that we should reconsider.
You are correct, of course, but a subset of computer scientists have been abusing the term in this way for at least a couple of decades. Their novel usage of “fixity” now has a degree of fixity, so it may be too late to fix "fixity".
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Erica Sadun <erica at ericasadun.com <mailto:erica at ericasadun.com>> wrote:
> cite The Swift Programming Language (Swift 2.2)
> http://imgur.com/sFPhPxz <http://imgur.com/sFPhPxz>
> -- E
>> On Mar 8, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Charles Kissinger via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>> On Mar 8, 2016, at 12:33 PM, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>> I agree that operator syntax needs to be reworked, but I prefer that whatever proposal ends up being accepted not abuse the word 'fixity' to mean something it doesn’t.
>> I can’t say with certainty whether “fixity” is cromulent or incromulent ;-), but how about: “position” or “placement”?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution