Precedence levels and associativity conflicts (Re: class interface of roles)

2006-10-21 Thread Carl Mäsak
Larry (): [...] The non-chaining precedence level is a bunch non-associative operators like .. and cmp. Historically, all operators of a particular precedence level have had the same associativity, so that when you analyze $a op1 $b op2 $c you only have to compare op1 with op2 if they're

Re: Precedence levels and associativity conflicts (Re: class interface of roles)

2006-10-21 Thread Jonathan Lang
Carl Mäsak wrote: The only alternative I can think of right now would be to disallow even _declaring_ two operators of different associativity on the same precedence level... but that kind of strictitude doesn't sound very perlish. That depends on how you phrase the restriction. If you phrase

Re: Precedence levels and associativity conflicts (Re: class interface of roles)

2006-10-21 Thread Carl Mäsak
Jonathan (), Carl (): The only alternative I can think of right now would be to disallow even _declaring_ two operators of different associativity on the same precedence level... but that kind of strictitude doesn't sound very perlish. That depends on how you phrase the restriction. If you