Remix clone Hacker News

new | show | ask | jobs Github

	▲	qsort 10 hours ago
		I don't think that's even well-defined if you have arbitrary infix operators with arbitrary precedence and arbitrary associativity (think Haskell). If $, & and @ are operators in that order of precedence, all right-associatve. Using your notation, what is: `a & << b $ c >> @ d` If $ is reduced below & but above @ then it's the same as: `((a & b) $ c) @ d` If it's reduced below both & and @ then it becomes: `(a & b) $ (c @ d)` I think conceptualizing parentheses as "increase priority" is fundamentally not the correct abstraction, it's school brain in a way. They are a way to specify an arbitrary tree of expressions, and in that sense they're complete.
	▲	layer8 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Clearly we need left-associative and right-associative inverse parentheses. a & )b $ c) @ d would mean ((a & b) $ c) @ d. a & (b $ c( @ d would mean a & (b $ (c @ d)). Combining both, a & )b $ c( @ d would mean (a & b) $ (c @ d). ;)