operators: document exact precedence, split up similar operators #3056
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Hmm, I think this would benefit from clarifying the order of the precedence (lowest = strongest) given that it wouldn't be obviously one way or the other, and possibly also how the associativity plays into it. I don't know whether the phrase from the original gist would fit in here, though. Happy to see the changes, though :) |
|
There is also |
|
The paragraph right before this table already says which is weak and which is strong :)
Is [..] an operator?
…On Fri, Aug 23, 2019, at 5:58 PM, Sven Slootweg wrote:
Hmm, I think this would benefit from clarifying the order of the precedence (lowest = strongest) given that it wouldn't be obviously one way or the other, and possibly also how the associativity plays into it. I don't know whether the phrase from the original gist would fit in here, though.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3056?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAASXLFD3RA7IAGJWMFPER3QGBMQZA5CNFSM4IPDEUM2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD5BNWYI#issuecomment-524475233>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAASXLBNI72ILIV33J6D6YLQGBMQZANCNFSM4IPDEUMQ>.
|
|
… On Sat, Aug 24, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Graham Christensen wrote:
The paragraph right before this table already says which is weak and which is strong :)
Is [..] an operator?
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019, at 5:58 PM, Sven Slootweg wrote:
> Hmm, I think this would benefit from clarifying the order of the precedence (lowest = strongest) given that it wouldn't be obviously one way or the other, and possibly also how the associativity plays into it. I don't know whether the phrase from the original gist would fit in here, though.
> —
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3056?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAASXLFD3RA7IAGJWMFPER3QGBMQZA5CNFSM4IPDEUM2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD5BNWYI#issuecomment-524475233>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAASXLBNI72ILIV33J6D6YLQGBMQZANCNFSM4IPDEUMQ>.
|
|
Oh, right, that bit wasn't visible in the diff. My bad :) |
edolstra
reviewed
Aug 27, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Incorporating the additional data from https://gist.github.com/joepie91/c3c047f3406aea9ec65eebce2ffd449d