<div dir="ltr"><div>An important thing to consider is if we really want to break standard library precedence hierarchy.</div><div>If we don't, then the proposal loses significance immediately.</div><div>If we do, then we should start discussion of specific changes right after this one.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm fine with NilCoalescingPrecedence, because Coalescing is a noun in this case. For example, we talk about "nil coalescing" operator.</div><div><br></div><div>Situation with namespacing is more intricate. I don't mind Precedence suffixes very much (better make keywords shorter), but it would be great if we came up with an elegant solution for dropping them.</div><div>One idea: add Precedence suffix automatically: 'precedence Additive', 'before: Additive', BUT 'Swift.AdditivePrecedence'.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-07-07 19:28 GMT+03:00 Dmitri Gribenko via swift-evolution <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>></span>:<br><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"><span class="">On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:27 AM, John McCall <<a href="mailto:rjmccall@apple.com">rjmccall@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Jul 7, 2016, at 9:23 AM, Dmitri Gribenko via swift-evolution<br>
> <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Proposal link:<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0077-operator-precedence.md" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0077-operator-precedence.md</a><br>
><br>
> Dave, Max and I discussed SE-0077 and reviewed the names of precedence<br>
> groups.<br>
> Here's our recommendation.<br>
><br>
> In general, we think some names don't read well and have some ambiguities,<br>
> for<br>
> example, "LogicalAndPrecedence" (looks like a conjunction),<br>
> "AdditivePrecedence" ("additive" is an adjective that modifies<br>
> "precedence"),<br>
> "RangePrecedence" ("range" is not an adjective, stands out).<br>
><br>
> We think that two directions would be fruitful:<br>
><br>
> 1. If the names of precedence groups will be in the same namespace as<br>
> types,<br>
> then we recommend pushing the names of precedence groups into a<br>
> "namespace",<br>
> for example "Precedence.Assignment".<br>
><br>
> We don't have any language features that would allow this.<br>
<br>
</span>'precedencegroup' that is being proposed is a new language feature, we<br>
can choose to use any syntax we like with it.</blockquote></div><br></div></div>