Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 From: nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: min and max, power, etc: no defined precedence Message-ID: <3523@ihlpf.ATT.COM> Date: 28 Jan 88 01:04:57 GMT References: <11182@brl-adm.ARPA> <2197@haddock.ISC.COM> <2336@haddock.ISC.COM> <3930@hoptoad.uucp> <1411@mips.mips.COM> Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Lines: 27 In article <1411@mips.mips.COM> hansen@mips.COM (Craig Hansen) writes: >In article <3930@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >> But if any operators *DO* slip through, I recommend that they have *NO >> DEFINED PRECEDENCE*. That's right, we don't need to make C's 11-level >> precedence into a 12-level precedence. Force the user to fully >> parenthesize any new operator, else the compiler rejects the expression. > >I have designed a language/compiler that has this precise feature for >ALL operators, and would just like to add that it's WONDERFUL. It not I wonder ... have you just designed an infix version of Lisp (which can be done with Lisp itself, but you have to be clever about it)? :-) >Actually, a _little_ precedence snuck in. Unary operators have >precedence over binary operators, but that rule turns out to be very >intuitive and easy to remember. So is the rule that multiplication comes above addition, or that the arithmetic operators come above the logical connectives, etc. These suggestions are fine for other languages, but not for C. This would change the language too much for it to be called C. -- _ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 (312) 510-6194 ' ) ) "The secret compartment of my ring I fill / / _ , __o ____ with an Underdog super-energy pill." / (_