[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