As Anton mentioned earlier, I feel the same way with respect to naming. No need to reiterate the points already made, but I do want to chime in on the topic of rarely used syntax.
While I agree of course that a cumbersome syntax for a rarely used feature is _not as bad_ as a cumbersome syntax for a common feature, all other things being equal, I think we should press for the most elegant possible syntax for all aspects of the language. It is needless, IMO, to insist that less commonly used features *ought* to be weighed down with more cumbersome spelling. On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 13:25 Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 30, 2016, at 1:08 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Jun 30, 2016, at 2:34 AM, Anton Zhilin via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals > >> /0077-operator-precedence.md > >> > >> Idea #1 > >> > >> There is a high chance that 'higherThan'/'lowerThan' names will be > >> chosen. I still see a problem with that. Keywords in Swift are written > >> in full lowercase, so we should actually take 'higherthan'/'lowerthan'. > >> > >> But then what's the point of the preposition? It blends with > >> higher/lower and doesn't actually add any clarity. So we should drop > >> 'than' and have just higher/lower or above/below or succeeds/preceeds or > >> whatever we choose, but *in a single word*. > > > > The preposition does add clarity. Are the listed precedences the ones > that are > > higher than the current precedence, or are they the ones that the current > > precedence is higher than? > > I agree with that for higher and lower, but I think above and below are > pretty clear (in the example just below it seems very clear (to me at > least) that Multiplicative is above additive and below Exponentiative). > > I think above and below are aesthetically the best here, but as has been > noted this will be a rarely used feature so I won't feel bad if something > else is selected, > > > > > > John. > > > >> > >> Idea #2 > >> > >> I personally don't like the direction in which the proposal moved (I > >> understand the reasons). Before the first review, consensus seemed to be > >> on this: > >> > >> precedence Multiplicative { > >> above Additive > >> below Exponentiative > >> } > >> > >> And now: > >> > >> precedencegroup MultiplicativePrecedence { > >> higherThan: AdditivePrecedence > >> lowerThan: ExponentiativePrecedence > >> } > >> > >> Don't you have a feeling that something cute and 'swift' was turned into > >> a monster? > >> > >> At least, if we change keywords, we will get this: > >> > >> precedence MultiplicativePrecedence { > >> above: AdditivePrecedence > >> below: ExponentiativePrecedence > >> } > >> > >> I also like in above/below that they are written with the same number of > >> letters, meaning that they will line up nicely. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
