Reversing the associativity makes sense, but having equal precedence for operators with differing associativity sounds -- as you say -- like madness.
Even having non-associative mixed with either-sided-associative sounds like a problem. In general, perhaps we should forbid equal precedence with differing associativity? Which then would mean that R would have to tweak the precedence slightly, to avoid an implicit infraction. So perhaps we could have a rule that meta-ops generate new operators of marginally looser precedence than the originals? -Martin On Sun, 29 Mar 2015, GitHub wrote: > > Branch: refs/heads/master > Home: https://github.com/perl6/specs > Commit: 40163b8cab714f0588c5e62cc7b181d5c2272b80 > > https://github.com/perl6/specs/commit/40163b8cab714f0588c5e62cc7b181d5c2272b80 > Author: TimToady <la...@wall.org> > Date: 2015-03-29 (Sun, 29 Mar 2015) > > Changed paths: > M S03-operators.pod > > Log Message: > ----------- > reverse associativity on R ops > > This seems slightly less unintuitive than the old semantics.
