🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep15.140027.17387@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu>
pjl@sparc10.cs.uiuc.edu (Paul Lucas) writes:
>In <1992Sep15.054226.4126@cc.tut.fi> jk87377@cc.tut.fi (Juhana
>Kouhia) writes:
>
>>Instead of making exponential operator; I would like to get
>>a new basic operation which allows programmer to define new
>>operations like 'a ** b'; that is, the '**' is defined.
>>('a pow b' is also good.)
>
>*****>	The short answer is that it's a _real_ pain.  The somewhat
>	longer answer is that making new operators means that you have
>	to also establish the precedence and associativity of the new
>	operator relative to all the other operators *AND* any other
>	operators created by other people.  Every time an operator is
>	added, the hierarchy would have to be readjusted.

I didn't thought this. 

>	For new operators, the precedence and associativity may seem
>	arbitary at the time of creation

At the compile time; just like functions are created.
Am I missing something? In what order the compiling the X and
the Y happens?

If X and Y provides the same function with different meanings,
how this is handled? I think the same apply to new operation.
That is, compile time error.
The same scope rules apply to the new operation too.

Lets suppose both X and Y makes the new operation to the
default operation precedence and associativity data set.
If they both offers the same operation, it is compile time error.
If both offers different operations, then this is valid.
But how to make the common operation predence and associativity
data set? I have to think about this a bit.
Just by adding the both operations to the same level?
For example,

Default set:
Level 1: * /
Level 2: + -

X:
Level 1: * / foo
Level 2: + -

Y:
Level 1: * /
Level 2: + - bar

The common set:
Level 1: * / foo
Level 2: + - bar



Juhana Kouhia