Luke Palmer wrote: > In the absence of a trait specifying otherwise, the precedence > defaults to the same as infix:<+>.
Heh. It'd be much safer to *require* a precedence specification on any new operator. If they're changing the parser, they ought to have the decency to be explicit about precisely where they're changing it. On the other hand, if we do end up with a default (still a Bad Idea, IMHO), it probably should be C<< is looser(&infix:<+>) >>, so that people don't have to rewire their understanding of the standard precedence sets every time someone who's defining an operator is too lazy to think about precedence or to type two dozen extra characters. Damian
