Re: Dangling else

SM Ryan <wyrmwif@tsoft.org>
5 Mar 2006 02:16:55 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Dangling else borneq@nborneq.nospam.pl (borneq) (2006-02-19)
Re: Dangling else haberg@math.su.se (2006-02-19)
Re: Dangling else wyrmwif@tsoft.org (SM Ryan) (2006-02-24)
Re: Dangling else rsc@swtch.com (Russ Cox) (2006-02-24)
Re: Dangling else rsc@swtch.com (Russ Cox) (2006-02-24)
Re: Dangling else wyrmwif@tsoft.org (SM Ryan) (2006-03-05)
Re: Dangling else wyrmwif@tsoft.org (SM Ryan) (2006-03-05)
Re: Dangling else jvorbrueggen-not@mediasec.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?=) (2006-03-05)
Re: Dangling else henry@spsystems.net (2006-03-05)
Re: Dangling else david.thompson1@worldnet.att.net (Dave Thompson) (2006-03-05)
Re: Dangling else mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2006-03-06)
Re: Dangling else rsc@swtch.com (Russ Cox) (2006-03-06)
Re: Dangling else marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2006-03-11)
[6 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: SM Ryan <wyrmwif@tsoft.org>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 5 Mar 2006 02:16:55 -0500
Organization: Quick STOP Groceries
References: 06-02-171
Keywords: syntax

"Russ Cox" <rsc@swtch.com> wrote:
# > [I don't know anyone who thinks that C's million levels of precedences
# > are a good idea. Back in the 1950s, it seemed reasonable in Fortran
# > for exponentiation to bind tighter than multiplication and division
# > which bound tighter than addition and subtraction, in line with most
# > mathemetical notation, and then it got away from us. How do you like
# > the APL rule that everything binds and associates the same? -John]
#
# I haven't used APL much, but troff expressions have the same
# rule--everything left to right, equal precedence--and there I find it


Actually APL is right to left,
1+2*3-1
is
1+(2*(3-(1)))


--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
There are subtler ways of badgering a witness.



Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.