3 ms·

This brings up an interesting problem for me. I've written a number of compilers where operators were not defined at parse-time, but handled via macros that ca

by daeken 17y ago

This brings up an interesting problem for me. I've written a number of compilers where operators were not defined at parse-time, but handled via macros that can be defined at any point. This makes the logic for transforming infix operators very difficult. If a change was made to make all operators operate left-to-right, this issue would go away. What do you guys think about this? Would it cause you serious problems while writing code?

panic 17y ago
This is how Smalltalk does it. "Operators" are just binary messages that are evaluated from left to right.
gruseom 17y ago
In addition to Smalltalk, the APL family (including J and K) do this too. It doesn't cause serious problems while writing code; once you get used to it, it's a whole lot simpler. It does, however, create a barrier to mainstream acceptance. So it seems to me your decision depends on how badly you want the latter.
- BigZaphod 17y ago
  I've often seen the claim that not having operator precedence hurts a language's acceptance, but is there any concrete evidence of that? Could it just be a coincidence? Were it not for the closed/licensed/expensive/commercial nature of Smalltalks, the language probably would not have fallen into to the relative obscurity it suffers today. I personally doubt that operators had anything to do with it. From what I've read of the history of the era, the language itself was much-loved and rising in popularity until the introduction of Java disrupted the traditional Smalltalk business models.
  - silentbicycle 17y ago
    While it isn't exactly the same thing, OCaml requires you to use different operators (e.g. + vs. +.) for ints and floating point numbers, and it's a very common complaint about the language. (It has conventional precedence.) When conventional arithmetic doesn't "just work", languages will often give a first impression of being awkward, even though the rules of operator precedence are actually more complicated than just consistently using prefix or infix left-to-right.

by daeken 17y ago

panic 17y ago

This is how Smalltalk does it. "Operators" are just binary messages that are evaluated from left to right.

gruseom 17y ago

In addition to Smalltalk, the APL family (including J and K) do this too. It doesn't cause serious problems while writing code; once you get used to it, it's a whole lot simpler. It does, however, create a barrier to mainstream acceptance. So it seems to me your decision depends on how badly you want the latter.

BigZaphod 17y ago
I've often seen the claim that not having operator precedence hurts a language's acceptance, but is there any concrete evidence of that? Could it just be a coincidence? Were it not for the closed/licensed/expensive/commercial nature of Smalltalks, the language probably would not have fallen into to the relative obscurity it suffers today. I personally doubt that operators had anything to do with it. From what I've read of the history of the era, the language itself was much-loved and rising in popularity until the introduction of Java disrupted the traditional Smalltalk business models.
- silentbicycle 17y ago
  While it isn't exactly the same thing, OCaml requires you to use different operators (e.g. + vs. +.) for ints and floating point numbers, and it's a very common complaint about the language. (It has conventional precedence.) When conventional arithmetic doesn't "just work", languages will often give a first impression of being awkward, even though the rules of operator precedence are actually more complicated than just consistently using prefix or infix left-to-right.