On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Matthew Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > > I agree. I’m not arguing against elegant syntax here. In fact the > opposite - my preference is for the syntax I consider to be the most > elegant (above and below in this case). I’m just not willing to argue to > strenuously over a less commonly used feature when the alternatives are > reasonable, if slightly less elegant. > Sorry--I wasn't directing the comment to you or trying to imply that you were arguing for less elegant syntax. Overall, I think everyone who's commented so far is in violent agreement that a more elegant syntax exists and has been suggested in some form or other. The comment was more a general point that "we all agree it can be better, but this is so rare, so maybe let's just call it a day" feels a little off, and that perhaps it'd be worth exploring a line of argument more like "we all agree it can be better, so barring any reason why a more commonly used feature would prohibit them, let's see if we can move closer to the better options." 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
