Nils Anders Danielsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Jón Fairbairn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I made a more concrete proposal later and Phil Wadler tidied it up.
> > I think It even got as far as a draft of the language, [...]
>
> Do you know where this proposal/draft
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Jón Fairbairn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I made a more concrete proposal later and Phil Wadler tidied it up.
> I think It even got as far as a draft of the language, [...]
Do you know where this proposal/draft can be found?
--
/NAD
___
I would imagine (reading into Jon Fairbairn's note) that the
difficulty is in combining it with the traditional handling of
precedences in parsing systems, as Bulat was describing. AFAIK, which
is not much on this topic, the notion of precedence in traditional LR
spewers is strictly tied to numeri
Good evening,
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> but when you want to have user-defined operators, that will mean that
> you need either to define precedences to all other operators
> (including those from other libs), or sometimes user programs will not
> compile because they used combination of operator
"Nicolas Frisby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What if operator precedences were specified as a partial order instead
> of using numbers?
I suggested something that did that to fplangc back in
1987... Thu, 19 Nov 87 17:49:50 GMT in fact! Simon PJ later
forwarded a message from Stef Joosten to si
Nicolas Frisby wrote:
> What if operator precedences were specified as a partial order instead
> of using numbers?
Henning Thielemann wrote:
> dict.leo.org says: "great minds think alike"
Funny, I thought of this too. It seems very natural.
You would probably want an implicit taking of transi
