Yigal Chripun wrote: > On 15/04/2009 18:50, BCS wrote: >> Hello Yigal, >> >> >>> sounds silly to me. Why not simply generalize and allow defining >>> in-fix functions like in functional languages? that also includes >>> allowing >>> any unicode character[s]. >> >> lexing and (more importantly) parsing become a major problem if you >> allow that >> >> > Since it is done in other languages (for example Scala), I'm sure it's > not impossible to implement. > I don't think Scala is that much more troublesome to lex/parse.
That's not a very good argument. Lots of things are possible; doesn't mean they're a good idea. Operator precedence determines how expressions are parsed. Having user-defined operators would require the code to be parsed once to get the operator definitions, then re-parsed with a different meaning. Euch. That said, I'm OK with adding operators with well-defined meanings to the language on an as-needed basis. opDot, opUnion, opCross, etc. -- Daniel
