Re: notation for extending precedence

>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?

Certainly listing the operators in order of non-decreasing precedence
is simple and easy to read, but doesn't work well for extensibility.
For extensibility, you (obviously) need to be able to name a previous
operator as in
(new-operator ">>" infix
    :precedence (less-than ">")
    :grouping "none"
    ... whatever other info is appropriate ...
)

My lisp background is showing:  the above should probably be in some style
similar to cascading style sheets.  After all, adding new operators is similar
to adding new style, in a very loose manner of speaking.

	Neil