<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br><br>Sent from my iPad</div><div><br>On May 21, 2016, at 7:48 AM, Антон Жилин <<a href="mailto:antonyzhilin@gmail.com">antonyzhilin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">Updated the proposal:<div><a href="https://github.com/Anton3/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0077-operator-precedence.md">https://github.com/Anton3/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0077-operator-precedence.md</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>I included many of alternate solutions. Please, reply, if I missed any.</div><div><br></div><div>Still I do not hurry to swap any of alternate solution with syntax used throughout the proposal, although many of them are objectively better.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Looks good. I really hope we do go with one of the better syntax forms though.<div><br></div><div>The one thing I don't like is "upper" and "lower". Those don't make sense to me in this context. Any of < and >, above and below, greaterThan and lessThan, gt and lt would be better IMO.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>- Anton</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-05-21 1:17 GMT+03:00 Matthew Johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthew@anandabits.com" target="_blank">matthew@anandabits.com</a>></span>:<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"><br><div><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div>On May 20, 2016, at 5:06 PM, Brandon Knope <<a href="mailto:bknope@me.com" target="_blank">bknope@me.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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"><br><br>On May 20, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Антон Жилин via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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"><div><div dir="ltr">My working version is still the one in the proposal, but I'm planning to add the alternative versions we discussed, including your and Brent's variants.<div><br><div>IMHO, original version is heavy, but clear (not to confuse with "clean"). Your lighter version looks more clean, but somewhat less consistent and more free in terms of grammar.</div><div><br></div><div>Also, I've got another version, which is considerably ligher than current one, while being as structured:</div><div><br></div><div>precedence Multiplicative {</div><div> associativity(left)</div><div> above(Additive)</div><div> below(Exponentiative)</div><div>}</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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">Why not:</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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">precedence Multiplicative {</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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"> associativity left</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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"> above Additive</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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"> below Epxonentiative</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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">}</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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">Just seeing if removing the parens reduces some of the noise. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I would be happy with this. It is almost the same as what I had suggested, just using > and < rather than above and below (because that was what the proposal was using). Using words instead is fine with me. The parens are my biggest objection in this version. In the original version I also didn’t like the verbosity of `precedencegroup` and the redundant statement `precedence` inside the braces.</div><div><div class="h5"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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">Sorry if I missed this suggestion earlier and it was denied :P</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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">Brandon </div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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"><br></div><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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"><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><br></div><div>- Anton</div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-05-21 0:25 GMT+03:00 Matthew Johnson<span> </span><span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthew@anandabits.com" target="_blank">matthew@anandabits.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><span><blockquote type="cite"><div>On May 20, 2016, at 4:22 PM, Антон Жилин <<a href="mailto:antonyzhilin@gmail.com" target="_blank">antonyzhilin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr">Yes, in this case it should be allowed, because this relationship already existed in imported modules. I will add that, too, thanks!</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Cool.</div><div><br></div><div>What is the latest syntax you are using? Did you consider any of the lighter weight options? That subthread died without conclusion (unless I missed something somehow).</div><div><div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><br></div><div>- Anton</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-05-21 0:01 GMT+03:00 Matthew Johnson<span> </span><span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthew@anandabits.com" target="_blank">matthew@anandabits.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><span><blockquote type="cite"><div>On May 20, 2016, at 3:51 PM, John McCall <<a href="mailto:rjmccall@apple.com" target="_blank">rjmccall@apple.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On May 20, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Антон Жилин <<a href="mailto:antonyzhilin@gmail.com" target="_blank">antonyzhilin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div><div dir="ltr">Inline:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-05-20 20:58 GMT+03:00 John McCall<span> </span><span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rjmccall@apple.com" target="_blank">rjmccall@apple.com</a>></span>:</div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>The transitivity rule plus the ability to define precedence relationships in both directions on a new precedence group allows a new precedence group to create a precedence relationship between existing unrelated precedence groups. This should be forbidden.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Agreed, although there is an alternate solution to allow global-scope relationship definition.</div><div>Trying to write it formally:</div><div><br></div><div>====begin====</div><div>Precedence relationships that, by transitivity rule, create relationship between two imported groups, is an error. Example:</div><div><br></div><div>// Module X</div><div>precedencegroup A { }</div><div>precedencegroup C { }</div><div><br></div><div>// Module Y</div><div>import X</div><div>precedencegroup B { precedence(> A) precedence(< C) }</div><div><br></div><div>This results in compilation error "B uses transitivity to define relationship between imported groups A and C".</div><div>The rationale behind this is that otherwise one can create relationships between standard precedence groups that are confusing for the reader.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>====end====</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Seems good to me.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Would this be allowed if Module X already defined precedence group C > A (it would not be defining a *new* relationship between A and C in that case)?</div><span><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>What's the purpose of equality relationships between precedence groups?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Agreed, will remove.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Ok.</div><div> <br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Your proposal should call out the special treatment of the Assignment and Ternary groups.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Do you mean that most operators should define greater precedence than Assignment / Ternary? Or there should be some other special treatment?<br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>Just that they have implicit members.<div><br></div><div>John.</div></div></div></blockquote></span></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;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"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>swift-evolution mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a></span></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote></div></body></html>