On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 17:38 -0500, Kevin Reid wrote: > I think what I would do to support human auditing is allow infix > operators, but prohibit precedence and associativity; that is, > parentheses must be used around any operand of an infix operator > which is itself an infix operation.
A slightly less draconian solution would be to declare that user-defined infix operators always have the highest precedence, and require parenthesization only when disambiguation is required. This would reduce the problem significantly. The question is: how pragmatically useful would this be? In practice, I observe that there seem to be a relatively small number of infix operators that people seem to want to introduce. If we can generate a vaguely sane set of these, I don't see a problem with predefining the operators into the precedence table and predefining a set of type classes to go with them. shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
