<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 Oct 22, 2016, at 8:53 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <<a href="mailto:jonathan.s.shapiro@gmail.com" class="">jonathan.s.shapiro@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">I missed this earlier posting from Joe Groff, who wrote:<br class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">In the discussion about operators, I wonder whether it makes sense to formally separate "identifier" and "operator" characters at all. ...</blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The consequence if we do not formally separate the operators (verbs) from the identifiers (nouns) is that white space will be needed around all operators. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it would be a significant and incompatible departure from today's Swift, both in terms of actual source code breakage and in terms of the "look and feel" that many people feel passionate about.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>That’s one way yeah. Or you’d could to make the grammar context sensitive / apply a "lexer hack”. Probably other ways to deal w/ context sensitivity as well. Joe’s proposed syntax seems pretty explicit, and hopefully it’sdsimple to plumb / capture that info in the lexer. (I’m ignorant of the implementation of Swift’s front-end unfortunately!)</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-Colin</div><br class=""></body></html>