RE: NASL2: precedence of 'logical NOT'

I strongly agree with the idea of matching another popular language's
precedence (and associativity for that matter).  Why do we need another
language's precedence rules?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Thomas Reinke
> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 12:02 PM
> To: Nessus Devel
> Subject: Re: NASL2: precedence of 'logical NOT'
>
>
> Don't go changing the precedence from the standard ones used
> in other programming languages. Standardize on A choice
> (be it C, Java, Perl, whatever), and use the same one. It's
> alot easier to document and just say "we use language Z's
> standard".  Sometimes the right choice is not necessarily
> the best one (else vi wouldn't live on so long ;-))
>
> Thomas
>
> Michel Arboi wrote:
> > "Jim Cervantes" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>I really think you are setting people up to be confused and having
> >>to code against their intuition.
> >
> >
> > OK, for the moment, nothing is broken because the NASL1 scripts are
> > full of parenthesis but we have to chose something before NASL2 is
> > released as "stable".
> >
> > 1. Change ! so that its precedence is similar to && and ||
> >    (counter-intuitive, different from C  and Perl, but rather logical)
> > 2. Leave ! as it is and hope that the script writers will put
> >    parenthesis where needed
> > 3. Leave ! as it is and add a low priority "not" operator
> >
> > After all, that may be a good compromise
> >
>
>
>