> On Jun 30, 2016, at 7:58 AM, Anton Zhilin via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@...> writes: > >>> There is a high chance that 'higherThan'/'lowerThan' names will be >>> chosen. >> >> What is giving you this idea? Did I miss some part of the > conversation? I don't recall any indication of what >> the final keywords will be. > > Yesterday Dave Abrahams noted that he was the one who insisted on > 'strongerThan'/'weakerThan' and that now he prefers > 'higherThan'/'lowerThan’.
Are you talking about this post? https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160627/022473.html I didn’t interpret that as endorsing any particular keywords, just as an acknowledgement that “stronger/weaker” is not the usual terminology and that “higher/lower” is. > >>> Before the first review, consensus seemed to be >>> on this: >>> >>> precedence Multiplicative { >>> above Additive >>> below Exponentiative >>> } >>> >>> And now: >>> >>> precedencegroup MultiplicativePrecedence { >>> higherThan: AdditivePrecedence >>> lowerThan: ExponentiativePrecedence >>> } >>> >> >> I'm really not sure why you think there is any kind of consensus on > this. I must have missed something. > > At least Xiaodi Wu and Brandon Knope seemed to agree with the first > version. I agree that that alone can't be considered 'consensus'. > Anyway, the point here is that we ended up with a syntax that is bulkier > than it could be. Agree. I hope we will avoid that. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
