jastrachan | 18 Feb 08:19 2005
Picon

Re: double checking precedence rules

On 17 Feb 2005, at 21:40, Chris Poirier wrote:
> Hi James,
>
>> 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...
>
> In case you missed it, the existing operator precedences are documented
> in o.g.c.syntax.Types.getPrecedence().

Thanks Chris

Its interesting comparing the Classic Groovy precedence rules against 
Java's (which is where the New Groovy took its rules from to start 
with)

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


Gmane