-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.4k
Decide what precedence ..
should have
#20256
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
I think cc @nick29581 |
I agree they should be parsed as |
I think |
@nick29581 could |
@sinistersnare We could make it work in one direction or the other, but I'm not sure I'd want to - |
Sure, makes sense :) |
So did we decide on a specific precedence level? I'd argue it should be lower than arithmetic operators (which is now fixed); but higher than comparison operators ( |
Currently,
1i + 1i..1i + 1i
is parsed as1i + (1i..(1i + 1i))
. This seems problematic. I would expect it to be parsed as(1i + 1i)..(1i + 1i)
(to match with how the current slicing syntax behaves), or possibly as1i + (1i..1i) + 1i
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: