> On Jun 28, 2016, at 9:12 AM, L. Mihalkovic <laurent.mihalko...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Question inline > Regards > LM > (From mobile) > On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:01 AM, John McCall via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > >>> On Jun 25, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Anton Zhilin via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>> I replaced `precedencegroup` with `precedence` and added `Precedence` >>> suffix to all precedence group names. See: >>> >>> https://github.com/Anton3/swift-evolution/blob/fix-operator- >>> precedence/proposals/0077-operator-precedence.md >>> >>> My feelings: >>> 1. `precedencegroup` describes what it declares more precisely >>> 2. `precedence` is shorter (partially compensating for longer names) >>> 3. `precedence` can be correctly interpreted as "precedence level" >>> 4. `precedence` looks nicer overall >> >> Keep in mind that this is a pretty marginal feature. I'm not sure >> "precedence" is a reasonable enough thing to take as a keyword for it. >> >> John. > > Would a meta-circular definition be possible (proposed a version using > enums)? I remember a mail from chris about moving certain things currently > backed into the compiler towards the stdlib, is this one a possible > candidate...
This is already strongly library-determined. The library defines what operators exist and defines their precedence w.r.t. each other and a small number of built-in operators. Operator precedence has to be communicated to the compiler somehow in order to parse code. This proposal is just deciding the syntax of that communication. I see no reason to use a more conceptually complex approach when a simple declaration will do. John. _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
