🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bxvs9I.L22@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>
>I agree that this complexity of syntax analysis is very weak.  Put one
>precedence for unary operators and another for binary operators, or even
>equate the infix notation x FOO y with !FOO(x,y); those of us who want 
>to use user-defined operators would find this a lot preferable to not
>allowing them at all, even if we had to use parentheses all the time.

So you're advocating that a programming language implement a syntax which
is directly incompatible with that commonly used in mathematics. Addition, 
multiplication, and exponentiation certainly have different precedences in
common usage. How many times, I wonder, have you against precisely that sort 
of language construction. 

However, you did suggest something that had been implemented dozens of times
over the last twenty years.  There is still hope for you.

-- 
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Department of Surgery                       dave@alex.bsd.uchicago.edu
Strong currency, strong whiskey, and strong typing