<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On Oct 2, 2017, at 10:56 PM, John Payne via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">Chris Lattner wrote:<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Just FWIW, IMO, these make sense as operators specifically because they are commonly used by math people as operations that transform the thing they are attached to. Superscript 2 is a function that squares its operand. That said, perhaps there are other uses that I’m not aware of which get in the way of the utilitarian interpretation.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">But there are SO MANY uses for superscripts, subscripts, and other such annotations, and they are all context specific, just in math, without getting into chemistry, physics, statistics, and so forth.<br class=""><br class="">They’re really more like methods on the object to which they’re attached, or the combination of a method and an argument. <br class=""></blockquote><br class="">I agree.<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Wouldn’t classing them as identifiers lend itself better to this?<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">No, making them an operator is better for this usecase.<br class=""><br class="">You want:<br class=""><br class="">x² to parse as “superscript2(x)” - not as an identifier “xsuperscript2” which is distinct from x.<br class=""><br class="">-Chris</blockquote><br class=""></div><div class="">I’m not competent to evaluate the implications of that, but let me just pass along what makes sense to me. For all I know it may be a restatement in different words, or a higher level view which your approach enables, or I may just have no grasp at all of what’s involved.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For brevity I’ll refer to superscripts, subscripts, etc. as annotations.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">An object may have more than one annotation, as with chemical elements which are usually presented at least with both their atomic number and atomic weight. Moreover, in some circumstances it might not be possible to evaluate the significance of any single annotation without taking one or more others into account, so it might be important to present them together, as in a struct or a collection.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Taking them singly, their significance is three part: 1) the type of the object, 2) the position of the annotation, and 3) the value of the annotation.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I would parse x² as x.trailingSuperscript(2), or better yet…</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">where X is the type of x, X.annotations would be a struct, similar to the following</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">struct annotations {</div><div class=""> leadingSuperscript: T?</div><div class=""> leadingSubscript: U?</div><div class=""> triailingSuperscript: V?</div><div class=""> trailingSubscript: W?</div><div class="">}</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Taking this approach, x² would parse as x.annotations.trailingSuperscript = 2, and would fail if X made no allowance for trailingSuperscripts.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Annotation values are frequently variables, xⁿ for example, and this is the main reason it seems reasonable to me to class the value as anything permitted by the type associated with an annotation in that position for the overall type in question.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’ll read any replies with interest, but I don’t think I'll have anything more to say on this subject myself.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>