Hi Yoshiki, On Dec 13, 2007 8:11 PM, Yoshiki Ohshima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 12, 2007 8:00 AM, Yoshiki Ohshima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It is good to know there are a handful! If we move even higher > > > description, such places should be rarer, I think. > > > > Could you and Ian please clarify the official position on this topic > > (you two had contradicting opinions in your emails)? > > In a post while ago, I wrote: > > ------- > My opinion doesn't necessary reflect my employer's and colleagues, > BTW. > ------
This makes me wonder: Who is the official voice in this project? Ian? Alan? You all together (after you've agreed on something)? > > Etoys already has very strange precedence rules (right-to-left). Do > > you plan for the Etoys-like system to have math precedence? > > The precedence rule in the newer (but not so new) Etoys for OLPC > follows the one you seem to like. (* / // \\ are stronger than + and > -, and min: and max: are weaker than + and -.) I think this is a good > idea for that audience. Great. I guess this means that your Etoys variant will have similar rules? :) > As I wrote, I'd anticipate there aren't too many of expressions with > conflicts. I think this means that we don't really have to make > everything right from the beginning. Agreed. Getting the basics right is critical, but I hope that with some form of help you can create a more usable product right from the beginning. Bye, Waldemar Kornewald _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
