RE: NASL2: precedence of 'logical NOT'

C sucks in some ways that you have articulated pretty well.  That said, it
is familiar - I know when to use parentheses, either because C is stupid or
my poor brain can't be trusted.  And when things go wrong, I know where to
look.  So, I would rather stick with the familiar.

Let's face it, whatever set of rules you choose, the language will work.
This is really a practical matter of what will make people most productive.
Isn't that what scripting languages are all about - an easy and forgiving
learning curve?  Anyway, I really do appreciate that NASL2 has emerged with
a full-fledged grammar, no matter what the precedence rules!  Thanks!

Jim




> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Michel Arboi
> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 6:32 PM
> To: Jim Cervantes
> Cc: Nessus Devel
> Subject: RE: NASL2: precedence of 'logical NOT'
>
>
> On Sun, 2003-02-16 at 12:20, Jim Cervantes wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Because most of the time, C or Perl try to be a little too smart for my
> tired brain. And I cannot trust them fully:
>     * I have _never_ seen an example of C or Perl code where "x & y ==
>       z" should really behave as it is implemented.
>     * I cannot see why "x == y == z" or " x < y < z" is authorized in C
>       or Perl. If somebody needs it, it should be implemented the way it
>       is in mathematics (i.e. "x < y and y < z" and not some crazy
>       integer to boolean compare)
>     * And I am just realizing that we should forbid things like "!!x" or
>       "~~ x" because they are useless now and may clash with some future
>       operator (Sorry Renaud! Implementing "!!" is easier than the fish
>       operator ">(°>" :)
>
> Anyway I agree that one expects a "compact" operator (I mean, with a
> very short name) like "!" to be strongly tied to the next variable.
> That's more a problem of readability than logic.
>
>
>