jastrachan | 18 Feb 08:14 2005
Picon

Re: double checking precedence rules


On 17 Feb 2005, at 21:35, Michael Campbell wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:04:07 +0000, jastrachan@...
> <jastrachan@...> wrote:
>> A couple of operators are missing in the New Groovy grammar which I've
>> just added - I wanted to double check folks thought the precedence
>> rules look OK; they may need a bit of tweaking...
>
> ...
>
>> Also we need to fit in the regex operators
>>
>> =~      (find)
>> ==~     (match)
>>
>> Should we put these in an existing bucket? Currently I've dropped them
>> in 9.5 as a starting place - anyone have any better ideas?
>
>
> I don't know if it's BETTER, but perl (is that where =~ originated?)
> binds it quite a bit higher; just after unary +/- and before
> muliplicative/division operators.  Ruby, OTOH, binds it just below the
> comparison operators.

Thanks

> In either case, it's higher than what you propose.   Was there a
> reason why you wanted it there?  I'm not arguing for it to be any
> different than what you have it at, I'm simply curious.

No, I just kinda picked somewhere; I figured it should be high-ish, 
just wasn't too sure at the time how high to go.

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/


Gmane