On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:41:49PM +0000, Luke Palmer wrote: : < and > still don't make sense as reduce operators.
Yeah, I keep confusing them with min and max. : That reminds me, how are <, >, etc. defined anyway? How can we tell : them to be list-associative with each other? Because they're all of that specific precedence level, which is defined to work that way by fiat, I suspect. (Other operators have to be explicitly declared as list associative, and even then are only list associative with themselves, not with all other operators in their precedence level.) I suppose it could be construed as some kind of default property on the actual precedence level, but it's not clear that that would be a useful generalization. Larry
