Re:Dennis Ritchie on the priorities of && || vs. == etc. (1982)
by Jenk on Saturday January 06, 2024 @08:44AM
(#38891344)
SmallTalk has the left-to-right for everything principle because everything is message passing and "operators" are just binary (as in two argument) messages which catches many out.
2 - 1 * 5
Re:Dennis Ritchie on the priorities of && || vs. == etc. (1982)
by djmcnab on Saturday January 06, 2024 @08:57AM
(#38891465)
WGSL (the shading language for WebGPU) has something similar[1].
For example, `a + b << c` will fail to parse in a conforming implementation, as will `a << b << c` and `a && b || c`. Note however that `a && b && c` does parse. I find these rules to be well-thought through.
[1]: https://www.w3.org/TR/WGSL/#operator-precedence-associativit...
Re:Dennis Ritchie on the priorities of && || vs. == etc. (1982)
by borrow on Saturday January 06, 2024 @09:41AM
(#38891769)
Novel among mainstream languages, but not unseen before: https://blog.adamant-lang.org/2019/operator-precedence/
Lots of prior languages have tried either:
1. No operator precedence, expressions must use parentheses so that it's very clear
2. No operator precedence, everything just happens left to right regardless
But Carbon says what if we do have precedence, but only between operators which programmers expect to have precedence - whenever it's unclear what should happen the compiler instead rejects that, the same way many languages won't let you ask whether 5 == "Five" because you need to explain WTF you intended as most likely you've screwed up and didn't realise they're completely different types.