Reversing the associativity makes sense, but having equal precedence for
operators with differing associativity sounds -- as you say -- like madness.
Even having non-associative mixed with either-sided-associative sounds like
a problem.
In general, perhaps we should forbid equal precedence with differing
associativity?
Which then would mean that R would have to tweak the precedence slightly, to
avoid an implicit infraction.
So perhaps we could have a rule that meta-ops generate new operators of
marginally looser precedence than the originals?
-Martin
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015, GitHub wrote:
>
> Branch: refs/heads/master
> Home: https://github.com/perl6/specs
> Commit: 40163b8cab714f0588c5e62cc7b181d5c2272b80
>
> https://github.com/perl6/specs/commit/40163b8cab714f0588c5e62cc7b181d5c2272b80
> Author: TimToady
> Date: 2015-03-29 (Sun, 29 Mar 2015)
>
> Changed paths:
> M S03-operators.pod
>
> Log Message:
> ---
> reverse associativity on R ops
>
> This seems slightly less unintuitive than the old semantics.
