On Sun, 2004-10-10 at 21:28, Jamis Buck wrote:
> True. Though if you are suggesting that people be allowed to change the 
> precedence of existing operators..._that_ might start making me a little 
> uncomfortable. If you change the precedence of an operator, it can 
> change the result of an entire expression, resulting in code breakage, 
> and making it really hard for people to understand what an expression is 
> supposed to be doing.

     Agreed.  I can't see any way that precedence could be changed by
the users without horrible complexities arising.  That isn't to say that
someone brighter than I am might not come up with a clever
conceptualization, but everything I've thought of for dynamic precedence
(and associativity) would be so far from POLS to qualify as POMS.
(principle of mayonnaise surprise).

    -- Markus