I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything -- as I can't say "we should do this", unless no one can come up code where the current precedence is used/useful/required -OR- how a change in precedence as I have outlined would cause a problem.
Parens are a sign of either a complex statement OR insufficient strength in the grammar. Did you check out the pdf I pointed to (the references he quotes in the pdf point back to HERE on perlmonks..). Oddly enough, he quotes perlmonks in discussing good Domain Specific language design, but only has examples in python, scala, ruby and smalltalk. Here is someone who was familiar enough with perl that he could quote erudite discussions on perlmonks, yet didn't use in any of his examples.
Qualities of good languages are generalization : reduce concepts by replacing a group of more specific cases with a common case.
Compression -- Provide a consise language that is sufficiently verbose for the domain experts. -- Specifically the goal being to "reduce the amount of expressions or to simplify their appearance while the semantics are not changed" ...et al...
The point here being to simplify the language in a way that loses none of its semantics, but simplifying the expressions.
So far no one has offered any examples of how this change would cause problems. It's not like I'm new to perl -- I've been using it since the early 90's when P-III was just being replaced by P-IV. It took me forever to change out of the P4 style and move toward P5... I'm not someone who is highly open to change. But neither am I for killing a language for the sake of preserving for as a future archival language.
In reply to Re^6: Precedence design question...'x' & arith
by perl-diddler
in thread Precedence design question...'x' & arith
by perl-diddler
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |