"woger151" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why wouldn't <~~(item_1) + <~~(item_2) be parsed as (<~~(item_1)) +
> (<~~(item_2))?
Because it's parsed as
<~~ ( (item_1) + ( <~~ (item_2) ) )
"+" binds more tightly than any non-built-in operator, per the
precedence chart in the manual:
http://ww
I defined a function, count_nonnull, to return 1 if not null, 0 otherwise.
Then I defined a corresponding unary operator <~~. I wanted it for
expressions like <~~ item_1 + <~~ item_2. But because precedence of
user-defined ops is pretty low, I had to rewrite this as <~~(item_1) +
<~~(item_2), w
