RE: NASL2: precedence of 'logical NOT'

I just checked the operator precedence for Perl, TCL, PHP, Java and C/C++.
They all put unary operators at the highest levels of precedence and as well
place "comparators" at the lowest levels of precedence.  I may be giving bad
examples of languages.  Can you name other popular languages that have the
kind of precedence relationship between unary operators like '!' and
comparator operators like '==' ?  I really think you are setting people up
to be confused and having to code against their intuition.

Just my two cents!

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Michel Arboi
> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 4:20 PM
> To: Jim Cervantes
> Cc: Nessus Devel
> Subject: RE: NASL2: precedence of 'logical NOT'
>
>
> On Sun, 2003-02-16 at 10:12, Jim Cervantes wrote:
> > Isn't it true that most programming languages give unary
> operators very high
> > precedence?
>
> Well, that's what C does. But I'm not sure it is a good example (e.g.
> the precedence of & and | is *bad*)
>
> >  I have always found this easy on the brain since it translates
> > into unary operators always binding to tokens that immediately follow.
> > Won't most people with at least some programming experience
> find what you
> > are suggesting to be unfamiliar?
>
> Then there is another possibility: implement additional logical
> operators (and, or, not) with very low precedence, like in Perl.
>
> ! x == y   <=> (! x) == y
> not x == y <=> ! (x == y)
>
> This means that ! x >< y is buggy code.
> egrep '! *[_a-zA-z0-9-]+.*><' *.nasl   does not return any suspicious
> code in the current plugins.
>
> And it seems that nobody had the bad idea of calling a variable 'and'
> 'or' or 'not'. Good.
>
>