Hi Jochen,
I tried to implement custom operator based on your new idea and found it
a bit ambiguous, e.g. ".<" is ambiguous to "obj.hello('Daniel')", ".*" is
ambiguous to "import java.util.*", etc. So I reserve the "`" notation for the
time being.
To extend your new idea:
a `>?` b === a."`>?`"(b) // binary expression
the following syntax will be useful too:
`?` a === "`?`"(a) // unary expression
a `?` === a."`?`"() // postfix expression
As you can see, with double "`" quoted, all the three syntax are natural.
Any thoughts？ ;-)
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
在 "Jochen Theodorou [via Groovy]"
<[email protected]>，2016年10月30日 下午8:16写道：
On 30.10.2016 11:07, Daniel.Sun wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
>
> There are some limitations when we use antlr to define grammar, so the
> backticks are used to distinguish with other operators.
>
> I saw an answer from Jochen(shown as follow), so I tryied to add this
> experimental feature
>
> "We always wanted the ability to define an operator through the user in
> Groovy, but so far we haven't gotten around the problems that come along
> with that."
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6485861/is-it-possible-to-define-a-new-operator-in-groovy/10848093#10848093
I actually gave up on custom operators for a bit.
In Scala you have a natural mapping of "a + b" to a."+"(b). But in
Groovy that would be a(+).b. That means binary expressions and command
expressions follow different patterns. That means in a+b+c we do not
naturally get (a+b)+c, we get a(+).b(+).c. This is what makes you
require special characters to distinguish operators and command
expressions in the usage of those
And if you change precedence rules like you described... a + b + c is
(a+b)+c while a + b "`x`" c would become a+(b "`x`" c) instead.
But to develop the idea... how about saying that everything between dot
and an identifier is an operator? So a .x c would be a.x(c).. well that
looks obvious, but a .>? c becomes a.">?"(c). This kind of logic would
reduce the need for special characters and be in line with existing
syntax. And at the same time precedence rule would be clear. a + b .>? c
would be a+(b.">?"(c)) and a .>? b +c would become (a.">?"(b))+c
bye Jochen
________________________________
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Custom-operator-for-Groovy-3-tp5736388p5736402.html
To unsubscribe from Custom operator for Groovy 3, click
here<http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=5736388&code=cmVhbGJsdWVzdW5AaG90bWFpbC5jb218NTczNjM4OHwxMTQ2MjE4MjI1>.
NAML<http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml>
--
View this message in context:
http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Custom-operator-for-Groovy-3-tp5736388p5736431.html
Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
