2014-11-10 12:47 GMT+01:00 Werner Kassens <wkass...@libello.com>: > >3 @ - <space> 5 is what I object to (and Opal allows) > with this i have no problems, it follows simple obvious rules as long as > one knows that #@ cant be an unary operator. > >is 4 - 5 two literals, or is it two literals separated by the - operator ? > but then there is no situation in which the - operator can really operate > and where a sequence of literals is at the same time possible. ok there is > #(4 - 5), but in this case the operator cant operate and first the > #()-thing is parsed and then its elements. > what has not been mentioned is: 4 -- 5, which in a certain way was (?) > problematic: my (old) pharobook (p.64) says: "Note that −− is not allowed > for parsing reasons". in this case it should be seen as 4 - -5 and one > needed to keep this special case in his mind, but i had no problems > defining a #--, which simplifies everything: if there is no special case, > then -- has to be parsed as one binary operator. and i only have an old > pharobook, a newer one perhaps (?) doesnt state this. > > all this just from my simple user perspective of course, but i guess the > question was not posed without reason in Pharo-Users. and this simple user > prefers freedom over paternalism anyday. > werner > >
Thanks for all the answers, so, for better portability, maybe we should dissallow opals current behavior and only accept "-5" and not "- 5" as negative numbers? Nicolai
