Operators and their arguments

Thread: Operators and their arguments

Search this list only Search all lists
Operators and their arguments
	2006-05-22 19:49:42
> > > On 22-May-06, at 10:30 AM, Jon Kleiser wrote: > > > A short description of the problem is this: >; > > > Io to some degree allows us to write arithmetic expressions with > > operator precedence as in C or FORTRAN, but when an operator is > > followed by a parenthesis, the operator "forgets about"; precedence > > rules and acts as a normal Io method. > > > > This can of course be confusing for a newbie, and as far as I know > > there isn't much to be found on this behavior in the Io docs. My > > example is this: >; > > > 1 + 5 * 4 > > ==> 21       ;     // expected > > > > 1 + (2 + 3) * 4 > > ==> 24       ;     // you see? > > Out of curiosity, what would be you suggest to fix this problem? No  > precedence? Consider parens grouping rather than the beginning of an  > arg list on operators? or are you ambivalent? And why would you  > suggest this course of action? > > > /Jon > > -- > Jeremy Tregunna > jtregunna... I have been working on an Io lexer/parser lately, written in Io, that I plan to make available in a day or two. The tests so far have been very promising. However, just recently I discovered that my lexer/parser handled operators and following parentheses different from the standard Io lexer/parser. I got a bit worried at first, but now I'm wondering if this non-standard behavior may actually be an acceptable solution to the problem above. When a bunch of critical testers have tried my lexer/parser for some time, we may know if it's the right way to go or not. (If it's acceptable, then someone would have to implement it in C.) /Jon