<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div><br></div><div>Am 09.04.2016 um 19:43 schrieb Антон Жилин <<a href="mailto:antonyzhilin@gmail.com">antonyzhilin@gmail.com</a>>:<br>[...]</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Now, I see only 1 large question/problem risen by David Waite:</div><div>Should precedence relationships be defined inside or outside of precedence groups?</div><div>That is: should we be able to add arbitrary relationships between existing groups?</div><div>[...]</div></div>
</div></blockquote><br><div>I'm in favor of declaring precedence relationships inside precedencegroup declarations. So they have a fixed place where they are defined.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The only minor syntax issue I have is that it is not immediately clear which operators belong to a precedence group. The former syntax with the "members(+, -)" solved this issue. However this has (currently) an extensibility problem:</div><div>If you define a new operator and it should belong to a precedencegroup where you have no access to its source (like Additive) then the whole argument about having operators in one place.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Another minor issue regarding your implementation of the standard library operators: "Additive" and all "Bitwise" precedencegroups should be above "Range"</div><div><br></div><div>// so this is also possible without parentheses</div><div>(1+2) ... (3+5)</div><div><br></div><div>This issue can be brought up again during another proposal which implements this proposal. So the standard library changes <b>should not</b> belong to this proposal (or least be clarified).</div><div><br></div><div>Kind regards</div><div>- Maximilian</div></body></html>