> On Nov 26, 2016, at 22:02, Dave Abrahams <[email protected]> wrote: > > > on Sat Nov 26 2016, David Sweeris <davesweeris-AT-mac.com> wrote: > >>> On Nov 26, 2016, at 17:19, Robert Widmann via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Just gotta field a version of that proposal that doesn’t “look like >>> Haskell” :) >> Is there something wrong with Haskell's approach to imports? I don't >> know how they do it, so I'm unaware of any pros/cons to their >> approach. The ":)" makes me think I'm missing something... >> >>> Seriously, though, would there be any objection to restoring the old >>> behavior of just silently ignoring perfect duplicates of operator >>> definitions across frameworks sans proposal? >> Yeah, it could silently change how statements get evaluated, if I >> start writing code using one library's operators, then import a 3rd >> library which defines the same operators but with different >> precedences. > > differnt precedences => not perfect duplicates, right?
That's a good question... I don't know... The compiler keeps track of functions by their "fully qualified" name, i.e. "MyLib.+(Int, Int)->Int", right? Swift's syntax only allows us to declare precedence on a per-operator basis. Does the compiler track precedence on a per-function basis anyway, and if so, how would you specify which precedence you want at the call site? Aside from parentheses, I mean. - Dave Sweeris _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
