Luke Palmer wrote:

> In the absence of a trait specifying otherwise, the precedence
> defaults to the same as infix:<+>.

Heh. It'd be much safer to *require* a precedence specification on any new
operator. If they're changing the parser, they ought to have the decency to be
explicit about precisely where they're changing it.

On the other hand, if we do end up with a default (still a Bad Idea, IMHO), it
probably should be C<< is looser(&infix:<+>) >>, so that people don't have to
rewire their understanding of the standard precedence sets every time someone
who's defining an operator is too lazy to think about precedence or to type
two dozen extra characters.


Reply via email to