[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0077 v2: Improved operator declarations

Matthew Johnson matthew at anandabits.com
Thu Jun 30 09:13:49 CDT 2016

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 7:58 AM, Anton Zhilin via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at ...> writes:
>>> There is a high chance that 'higherThan'/'lowerThan' names will be 
>>> chosen.
>> What is giving you this idea?  Did I miss some part of the 
> conversation?  I don't recall any indication of what
>> the final keywords will be.
> Yesterday Dave Abrahams noted that he was the one who insisted on 
> 'strongerThan'/'weakerThan' and that now he prefers 
> 'higherThan'/'lowerThan’.

Are you talking about this post? https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160627/022473.html

I didn’t interpret that as endorsing any particular keywords, just as an acknowledgement that “stronger/weaker” is not the usual terminology and that “higher/lower” is.  

>>> Before the first review, consensus seemed to be 
>>> on this:
>>> precedence Multiplicative {
>>>   above Additive
>>>   below Exponentiative
>>> }
>>> And now:
>>> precedencegroup MultiplicativePrecedence {
>>>   higherThan: AdditivePrecedence
>>>   lowerThan: ExponentiativePrecedence
>>> }
>> I'm really not sure why you think there is any kind of consensus on 
> this.  I must have missed something.
> At least Xiaodi Wu and Brandon Knope seemed to agree with the first 
> version. I agree that that alone can't be considered 'consensus'.
> Anyway, the point here is that we ended up with a syntax that is bulkier 
> than it could be.

Agree.  I hope we will avoid that.

> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list