|Re: Dangling else firstname.lastname@example.org (SM Ryan) (2006-02-24)|
|Re: Dangling else email@example.com (Russ Cox) (2006-02-24)|
|Re: Dangling else firstname.lastname@example.org (2006-03-05)|
|Re: Dangling else email@example.com (Marco van de Voort) (2006-03-11)|
|Re: operator priorities, was Dangling else firstname.lastname@example.org (2006-03-14)|
|Date:||14 Mar 2006 00:49:29 -0500|
|Organization:||Department of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen|
|References:||06-02-154 06-02-168 06-03-008 06-03-023|
|Posted-Date:||14 Mar 2006 00:49:29 EST|
Marco van de Voort <email@example.com> writes:
> On 2006-03-05, Henry Spencer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Bear in mind, though, that attempts to reduce the number of levels have
> > often been found equally unsatisfactory. Pascal tried, and the result was
> > counterintuitive cases where certain parentheses, which everyone agrees
> > ought to be redundant, are in fact necessary.
> Could you give examples here? Are you refering to the experimental
> notations for exponentiation 2^(-1) in some dialects ?
I think Henry is referring to AND and OR having the same precedences
as * and +, so "x<y AND y<z" would be parsed as "x<(y AND y)<x", which
would be a parse error as "<" is non-associative.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.