To wrap this item up, it would be good to know where the distinction (parsing) is done in sources?
Thanks, Kaj On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 5:03:09 PM UTC+3, Steven G. Johnson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 2:34:00 PM UTC+1, Kaj Wiik wrote: >> >> Yes, it is probably a binary operator but searches fail to find it. >> > > Certain symbols are parsed as operators, and others are parsed as > identifiers. This is independent of whether that symbol is defined in Base. > > For example α is parsed as an identifier (which is not defined in Base). > ± and ⊕, on the other hand, are parsed as binary operators (which are also > not defined in Base). > > For something parsed as a binary operator, if you want to give it a > definition you should define it as a two-argument function, e.g. ⊕(x,y) = x > .+ 2y .... then e.g. a⊕b will correspond to the function call ⊕(a,b). >
