Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upInfix operator for exponentiation should be right-associative #256
Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
evancz
May 28, 2015
Member
I saw you mentioned that this is the standard in other languages. Do you mind sharing a few links as evidence just for the record? Otherwise this looks great to me, thank you for finding this and sending a PR!
|
I saw you mentioned that this is the standard in other languages. Do you mind sharing a few links as evidence just for the record? Otherwise this looks great to me, thank you for finding this and sending a PR! |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
ThomasWeiser
May 28, 2015
Contributor
Haskell:
- Precedences and fixities of prelude operators (scroll up a bit)
- Prelude:
(**), logBase :: a -> a -> a infixr 8
R: The exponentiation operator ^ [...] group right to left
|
Haskell:
R: The exponentiation operator |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
|
Great, thank you! |
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 2015
evancz
merged commit ad00476
into
elm:master
May 29, 2015
1 check passed
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
mgold
May 30, 2015
Contributor
I doubt anyone is relying on this, but isn't it a backwards-incompatible change?
|
I doubt anyone is relying on this, but isn't it a backwards-incompatible change? |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
evancz
May 31, 2015
Member
Yes, it is. I have an item on my todo list of "fixity changes are breaking changes in elm-package" but it is not implemented right now. Not sure what I'm going to do. It may be that the explicit exports that @jvoigtlaender added recently will "remove" some functions causing a major version change anyway.
|
Yes, it is. I have an item on my todo list of "fixity changes are breaking changes in elm-package" but it is not implemented right now. Not sure what I'm going to do. It may be that the explicit exports that @jvoigtlaender added recently will "remove" some functions causing a major version change anyway. |
ThomasWeiser commentedMay 28, 2015
I don't think that anyone will ever use an expression like
3^3^3,but it's nicer to follow the general convention.
Otherwise it would look like an oversight.