<div style="white-space:pre-wrap">I like this suggestion a lot. Using labels has a nice elegance to it and makes the usage very clear. If we drop the -ing like Chris suggests, it also aligns nicely with the same keywords used to define them.<br><br>I'm not a parser expert, but this seems like it might be easier to parse than fully-qualified operators. It is visually, at least.<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:59 PM Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hmm, a thought going in a slightly different direction: if these static functions were called like any other function, there might not be a need for having special rules for parameter labels, which can then be freed to denote prefix and postfix operators. In other words, we could have:</div><div><br></div><div>* for infix operators, no labels, like so: `static func + (_ lhs: T, _ rhs: T)`, used like this: `T.+(1, 2)`</div><div>* for prefix and postfix operators, a label, like so: `static func + (prefixing value: T)`, used like this: `T.+(prefixing: 1)`</div></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:26 PM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span><br><blockquote type="cite">On May 2, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br><br>On May 2, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> How does one distinguish between calls to a static prefix operator and a<br> static postfix operator with the same name?<br><br>Ah, that's a tricky one that I don't have an immediate answer to, so I'm<br>definitely open to creative thoughts here.<br></blockquote><br>One possibility: just use “qualified operator” notation.<br><br> lhs T.+= rhs<br><br> T.++x<br> x T.++<br></blockquote><br>I’m not sure if this is exactly right, but it seems close. I think that something like this is probably the best way to go, since it composes properly in arbitrary expressions. It does have a surface level weirdness to it, but it also "makes sense” in terms of how operators work. <br></blockquote></span>Yeah… Maybe with parens?<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div>T.++(x)</div><div>(x)T.++</div></blockquote><div>Or is that worse?</div><div><br></div><div>- Dave Sweeris</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
swift-evolution mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
swift-evolution mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br>
</blockquote></div>