[m-rev.] for review: user-defined operator tables

[Peter Schachte]

On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 07:23:51PM +1100, Simon Taylor wrote:
> On 06-Nov-2001, Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > > +* We've fixed a bug in the Mercury Language Reference Manual.
> > > +  Operator terms have a higher priority than `^'.
> > 
> > s/higher/lower/ ??
> 
> No. If the Mercury documentation is going to be inconsistent with the
> usual description of precedence in the non-Prolog world, it should at
> least be consistently inconsistent.

You could always use unambiguous words like "bind tighter" or "tighter
precedence".

-- 
Peter Schachte              A classic is something that everybody wants to
schachte at cs.mu.OZ.AU        have read and nobody wants to read.
www.cs.mu.oz.au/~schachte/      -- Mark Twain 
Phone: +61 3 8344 9166      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
post:  mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------