<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 8, 2016, at 1:52 PM, Austin Zheng <<a href="mailto:austinzheng@gmail.com" class="">austinzheng@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">'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.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div><div>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".</div></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best,</div><div class="">Austin</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Erica Sadun <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:erica@ericasadun.com" target="_blank" class="">erica@ericasadun.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class="">cite The Swift Programming Language (Swift 2.2)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="http://imgur.com/sFPhPxz" target="_blank" class="">http://imgur.com/sFPhPxz</a></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-- E</div></font></span><span class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 8, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Charles Kissinger via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div style="font-family:Palatino-Roman;font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><br class="">On Mar 8, 2016, at 12:33 PM, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">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.</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I can’t say with certainty whether “fixity” is cromulent or incromulent ;-), but how about: “position” or “placement”?</div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>