From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9cccf6ef6149fdaa
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Operators -> unit analysis
Date: 2000/01/07
Message-ID: <wccln626ily.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 569559854
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <38620350.48F8FC08@gecm.com> <83u8l0$5i5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <84rd2f$snm$1@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net> <t7aemmtz3b.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>
 <84thof$9r3$1@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net> <387383D0.4EA02E95@earthlink.net>
 <850jiq$mad$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3874D0BE.82F04763@Raytheon.com>
 <853lkg$tgj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-01-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

> This is of course the Algol-68 approach, and I think even the
> Algol-68 designers regard it as a horrible mistake. One should
> only rely on precedence of operators where the precedence rules
> are clear and obvious. This cannot be the case by definition
> for user defined precedences.

I would say: If it's not a precedence rule I learned in grade school,
then it shouldn't be in a programming language (whether it was put there
by the language designer or by some "clever" programmer).

- Bob