> On May 20, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Антон Жилин via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> My working version is still the one in the proposal, but I'm planning to add
> the alternative versions we discussed, including your and Brent's variants.
>
> IMHO, original version is heavy, but clear (not to confuse with "clean").
> Your lighter version looks more clean, but somewhat less consistent and more
> free in terms of grammar.
>
> Also, I've got another version, which is considerably ligher than current
> one, while being as structured:
>
> precedence Multiplicative {
> associativity(left)
> above(Additive)
> below(Exponentiative)
> }
Why not:
precedence Multiplicative {
associativity left
above Additive
below Epxonentiative
}
Just seeing if removing the parens reduces some of the noise.
Sorry if I missed this suggestion earlier and it was denied :P
Brandon
>
> - Anton
>
> 2016-05-21 0:25 GMT+03:00 Matthew Johnson <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> On May 20, 2016, at 4:22 PM, Антон Жилин <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, in this case it should be allowed, because this relationship already
>>> existed in imported modules. I will add that, too, thanks!
>>
>> Cool.
>>
>> What is the latest syntax you are using? Did you consider any of the
>> lighter weight options? That subthread died without conclusion (unless I
>> missed something somehow).
>>
>>
>>>
>>> - Anton
>>>
>>> 2016-05-21 0:01 GMT+03:00 Matthew Johnson <[email protected]>:
>>>>
>>>>>> On May 20, 2016, at 3:51 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 20, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Антон Жилин <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Inline:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2016-05-20 20:58 GMT+03:00 John McCall <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>> The transitivity rule plus the ability to define precedence
>>>>>>> relationships in both directions on a new precedence group allows a new
>>>>>>> precedence group to create a precedence relationship between existing
>>>>>>> unrelated precedence groups. This should be forbidden.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed, although there is an alternate solution to allow global-scope
>>>>>> relationship definition.
>>>>>> Trying to write it formally:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ====begin====
>>>>>> Precedence relationships that, by transitivity rule, create relationship
>>>>>> between two imported groups, is an error. Example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // Module X
>>>>>> precedencegroup A { }
>>>>>> precedencegroup C { }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // Module Y
>>>>>> import X
>>>>>> precedencegroup B { precedence(> A) precedence(< C) }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This results in compilation error "B uses transitivity to define
>>>>>> relationship between imported groups A and C".
>>>>>> The rationale behind this is that otherwise one can create relationships
>>>>>> between standard precedence groups that are confusing for the reader.
>>>>>> ====end====
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems good to me.
>>>>
>>>> Would this be allowed if Module X already defined precedence group C > A
>>>> (it would not be defining a *new* relationship between A and C in that
>>>> case)?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's the purpose of equality relationships between precedence groups?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed, will remove.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your proposal should call out the special treatment of the Assignment
>>>>>>> and Ternary groups.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you mean that most operators should define greater precedence than
>>>>>> Assignment / Ternary? Or there should be some other special treatment?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just that they have implicit members.
>>>>>
>>>>> John.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
