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

[Xiaodi Wu]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Matthew Johnson <matthew at anandabits.com>
wrote:

>
> On Jun 30, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As Anton mentioned earlier, I feel the same way with respect to naming. No
> need to reiterate the points already made, but I do want to chime in on the
> topic of rarely used syntax.
>
> While I agree of course that a cumbersome syntax for a rarely used feature
> is _not as bad_ as a cumbersome syntax for a common feature, all other
> things being equal, I think we should press for the most elegant possible
> syntax for all aspects of the language. It is needless, IMO, to insist that
> less commonly used features *ought* to be weighed down with more cumbersome
> spelling.
>
>
> I agree.  I’m not arguing against elegant syntax here.  In fact the
> opposite - my preference is for the syntax I consider to be the most
> elegant (above and below in this case).  I’m just not willing to argue to
> strenuously over a less commonly used feature when the alternatives are
> reasonable, if slightly less elegant.
>

Sorry--I wasn't directing the comment to you or trying to imply that you
were arguing for less elegant syntax. Overall, I think everyone who's
commented so far is in violent agreement that a more elegant syntax exists
and has been suggested in some form or other.

The comment was more a general point that "we all agree it can be better,
but this is so rare, so maybe let's just call it a day" feels a little off,
and that perhaps it'd be worth exploring a line of argument more like "we
all agree it can be better, so barring any reason why a more commonly used
feature would prohibit them, let's see if we can move closer to the better
options."


On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 13:25 Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jun 30, 2016, at 1:08 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Jun 30, 2016, at 2:34 AM, Anton Zhilin via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> >> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals
>> >> /0077-operator-precedence.md
>> >>
>> >> Idea #1
>> >>
>> >> There is a high chance that 'higherThan'/'lowerThan' names will be
>> >> chosen. I still see a problem with that. Keywords in Swift are written
>> >> in full lowercase, so we should actually take 'higherthan'/'lowerthan'.
>> >>
>> >> But then what's the point of the preposition? It blends with
>> >> higher/lower and doesn't actually add any clarity. So we should drop
>> >> 'than' and have just higher/lower or above/below or succeeds/preceeds
>> or
>> >> whatever we choose, but *in a single word*.
>> >
>> > The preposition does add clarity.  Are the listed precedences the ones
>> that are
>> > higher than the current precedence, or are they the ones that the
>> current
>> > precedence is higher than?
>>
>> I agree with that for higher and lower, but I think above and below are
>> pretty clear (in the example just below it seems very clear (to me at
>> least) that Multiplicative is above additive and below Exponentiative).
>>
>> I think above and below are aesthetically the best here, but as has been
>> noted this will be a rarely used feature so I won't feel bad if something
>> else is selected,
>>
>>
>> >
>> > John.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Idea #2
>> >>
>> >> I personally don't like the direction in which the proposal moved (I
>> >> understand the reasons). Before the first review, consensus seemed to
>> be
>> >> on this:
>> >>
>> >> precedence Multiplicative {
>> >>   above Additive
>> >>   below Exponentiative
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> And now:
>> >>
>> >> precedencegroup MultiplicativePrecedence {
>> >>   higherThan: AdditivePrecedence
>> >>   lowerThan: ExponentiativePrecedence
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> Don't you have a feeling that something cute and 'swift' was turned
>> into
>> >> a monster?
>> >>
>> >> At least, if we change keywords, we will get this:
>> >>
>> >> precedence MultiplicativePrecedence {
>> >>   above: AdditivePrecedence
>> >>   below: ExponentiativePrecedence
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> I also like in above/below that they are written with the same number
>> of
>> >> letters, meaning that they will line up nicely.
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> swift-evolution mailing list
>> >> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > swift-evolution mailing list
>> > swift-evolution at swift.org
>> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160630/7adfed54/attachment.html>