Van Snyder wrote:
>
> Phillip Helbig wrote:
>
> >This isn't backward-compatible, as A*(B+C) forces evaluation now; you
> >need a NEW notation for a new feature.
>
> and Kurt Hirchert wrote:
>
> ! That's why it was proposed to add a second evaluation mode rather than
> ! changing the behavior of the existing mode. The new mode would reflect
> ! what people usually meant by parentheses, while the old one would be
> ! retained for those people who actually depended on the evaluation order
> ! guarantees it provided.
>
> A reasonable place to specify a different mode is ...
I have always thought it would be a good idea to be able to do
some things like this. One might be that evaluation must match
the interpretation (as an option), so that a+b+c MUST be done
right to left (in this mode). Another mode (or the same one) might
involve mandatory shortcutting of logical expression, for example.
Then the default can be the way it has always been (pretty much anything
goes).
I would leave it to the current experts to argue how this might best
be done.
--
Walt Brainerd [log in to unmask]
Unicomp, Inc. +1-520-298-7212 298-7074 (fax)
7660 E. Broadway, Suite 308 888-330-6060
Tucson, AZ 85710 USA http://www.uni-comp.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|