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

[L. Mihalkovic]

It really looks like the process is showing its limits... with so many people, some with knowledge of compiler imposed limitations, most with a laundry list of their favorite features from other languages, and even a few aspiring at finally having anti-gravity boots into the compiler, it seems something might have to change to keep the debate while allowing more focus than has sometimes happened around hot topics. 
Regards
(From mobile)

> On Jul 7, 2016, at 9:02 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Dmitri Gribenko via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:27 AM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
>> > On Jul 7, 2016, at 9:23 AM, Dmitri Gribenko via swift-evolution
>> > <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> >> Proposal link:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0077-operator-precedence.md
>> >
>> > Dave, Max and I discussed SE-0077 and reviewed the names of precedence
>> > groups.
>> > Here's our recommendation.
>> >
>> > In general, we think some names don't read well and have some ambiguities,
>> > for
>> > example, "LogicalAndPrecedence" (looks like a conjunction),
>> > "AdditivePrecedence" ("additive" is an adjective that modifies
>> > "precedence"),
>> > "RangePrecedence" ("range" is not an adjective, stands out).
>> >
>> > We think that two directions would be fruitful:
>> >
>> > 1.  If the names of precedence groups will be in the same namespace as
>> > types,
>> >     then we recommend pushing the names of precedence groups into a
>> > "namespace",
>> >     for example "Precedence.Assignment".
>> >
>> >
>> > We don't have any language features that would allow this.
>> 
>> 'precedencegroup' that is being proposed is a new language feature, we
>> can choose to use any syntax we like with it.
>> 
> 
> If you're going to design a new language feature to sink precedence groups into a namespace of their own, you might as well sink them into an unutterable namespace, effectively moving them out of the same namespace as types altogether, no?
>  
>> Dmitri
>> 
>> --
>> main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if
>> (j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com>*/
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160707/80e6a9c4/attachment.html>