On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 15:42:50 -0700, c...@zoffix.com wrote: > Per TimToady[^1], we should throw on attempts to use list assoc with > non-infix ops.
From: https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6-dev/2018-01-12#i_15683344 14:16 masak re https://rt.perl.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=132711 -- associativity *does* make sense for prefix ops. see S03 for the whole scoop 14:17 ...but basically, if you have `!$a!`, where prefix:<!> and postfix:<!> have the same precedence, then those two ops *associate* in the sense of having a left or right associativity 14:17 (I happen to know this because 007 has this behavior, which was copied directly from Perl 6) 14:19 we basically never run into this, because people generally don't tend to make postfixes bind as tightly as prefixes. (they're usually tighter, modulo the fact that Perl 6 has one termish set of precedences and one list-oppy set.) 14:20 but if you ever made a precedence level with both prefixes and postfixes in it, then associativity would totally make sense in the above way. 14:22 masak for all intents and purposes, associativity is something that you set on a whole precedence level, not on individual operators. but since precedence levels are not first-class in Perl 6, we set them on ops. having two ops on the same level differ in associativity is pretty nonsensical, though.
