From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2004-10-11T17:38:39+09:00
Subject: Re: ANN: Free-form-operators patch

Hi,

In message "Re: ANN: Free-form-operators patch"
    on Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:19:01 +0900, Markus <markus@reality.com> writes:

|     Matz is a nice, reasonable, and very intelligent guy.  If (and the
|jury is still out) I can make this work and suggested it for actuall
|use, but do so in a way that is incompatible with the big picture, I'm
|sure he'll point it out to me himself.

I'm a nice and reasonable guy but not sure being intelligent.

I haven't settled my opinion about this patch.  Surely this is a
interesting change, but has some concerns.

* I am against for user defined operator precedence.  It's just
  wrong.  So forget about that idea.  All user defined operators
  should have same precedence, even if they are allowed.

* I'm little bit afraid of the potential confusion (or obfuscation)
  caused by this change, especially in combination with open classes.
  I don't fully trust programmers.  They need freedom.  But too much
  freedom might hinder usefulness of a language.

  The selector namespace might help isolate influence from this change
  within certain static scope, but I still do not have a good idea to
  implement it effectively, or even how it should behave.

							matz.