If we chose something other than strongerThan and weakerThan, I would really like to see something like
evaluateBefore, evaluateAfter foundBefore, foundAfter lookupBefore, lookupAfter On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Anton Zhilin via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > Ross O'Brien via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@...> writes: > > > The naming suggestion: why not simply 'precedes' and 'succeeds'? This > avoids the conjoined words problem. Then you're just writing > 'Multiplication { succeeds: Exponentiation, precedes: Addition }'. > > I still believe that `above` and `below` are clearer. > > > Suppose wanted to define C's precedence so its operation preceded both A > and B, or succeeded both A and B. Does that require an explicit > declaration of which of A or B takes precedence? If not, would this be > legal?: > > 'precedencegroup C { strongerThan: A, strongerThan: B }' > > Any number of strongerThan and weakerThan relationships should be legal. > Order of these relationships does not matter. We model them as edges of a > DAG of all declared operators. > > There will be no problems during parsing. For example, > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunting-yard_algorithm > only requests equality and less-than relationships between two operators. > > - Anton > > _______________________________________________ > 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
