At 8:51 AM 9/18/96, T. V. Raman wrote: >AsTeR used about 12-15 precedence levels (I think) >and did not handle associativity but I could mail out the file of lisp code >containing the precedence definitions. >Would this be useful? >--the file contains all the operators with the precedence defined (all this >is from memory --I'll have to go back and look) This would be interesting to see, but I'm not sure if my original question was clear. I didn't mean to ask for a suggestion of precedences themselves, but rather, for a suggested file format for a large table of operators and their precedences, which doesn't use numerical precedence levels (like your suggested format for defining new operators doesn't), but which also doesn't require each operator to mention the name of the preceding operator in the list (like your suggested format would require, if used for this). That is, I see how your suggested format could be used to define each built-in operator as having precedence less than the previous one in the file, but I would prefer a file format in which it was easy to insert (by text-editing operations on that file) a new operator between two of the existing ones, or to reorder some of the operators. This could be done by requiring them to be listed in order of non-decreasing precedence, with some indication of when the precedence level changes (since many of them have the same level), but the question is, how well can this coexist with the ability to define new operators incrementally -- that is, can one format for operator definitions solve both problems well?Received on Thursday, 19 September 1996 23:50:07 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 15 April 2023 17:19:57 UTC