On 6/7/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:41:49PM +0000, Luke Palmer wrote:
> : < and > still don't make sense as reduce operators.
>
> Yeah, I keep confusing them with min and max.
>
> : That reminds me, how are <, >, etc. defined anyway? How can we tell
> : them to be list-associative with each other?
>
> Because they're all of that specific precedence level, which is defined
> to work that way by fiat, I suspect. (Other operators have to be
> explicitly declared as list associative, and even then are only list
> associative with themselves, not with all other operators in their
> precedence level.) I suppose it could be construed as some kind of
> default property on the actual precedence level, but it's not clear
> that that would be a useful generalization.
Okay, I was referring more to the implementation. How do we tell apart:
3 < 4 <= 5 == 5
From
3 lt 4 >= 5 != 5
?
Luke
