Jonathan (>), Carl (>>):
> The only alternative I can think
> of right now would be to disallow even _declaring_ two operators of
> different associativity on the same precedence level... but that kind
> of strictitude doesn't sound very perlish.
That depends on how you phrase the restriction.
Carl Mäsak wrote:
The only alternative I can think
of right now would be to disallow even _declaring_ two operators of
different associativity on the same precedence level... but that kind
of strictitude doesn't sound very perlish.
That depends on how you phrase the restriction. If you phrase
Larry (>):
[...]
The non-chaining precedence level is a bunch non-associative operators
like .. and cmp. Historically, all operators of a particular precedence
level have had the same associativity, so that when you analyze
$a op1 $b op2 $c
you only have to compare op1 with op2 if they're
