Content deleted Content added
Stevebroshar (talk | contribs) |
→'bifix' operators: new section |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 23:
Much of this article is slow to get to the point. Lots of repetition. Lots of word salad. Just one example: "The semantics of operators particularly depends on value, evaluation strategy, and argument passing mode (such as Boolean short-circuiting). Simply, an expression involving an operator is evaluated in some way, and the resulting value may be just a value (an r-value), or may be an object allowing assignment (an l-value)." What does 'particularly' add? What does it mean that semantics depends on value? What is evaluation strategy? What is argument passing mode WRT an operator? What about the second sentence is 'simple'? How did we get to r-value and l-value? What is the point of the whole passage? It's word salad: a bunch of jargon tossed together without much substance. [[User:Stevebroshar|Stevebroshar]] ([[User talk:Stevebroshar|talk]]) 12:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
:I edited the article throughout to focus on the topic. I added some talk topics here as well for issues that I'm less sure about. [[User:Stevebroshar|Stevebroshar]] ([[User talk:Stevebroshar|talk]]) 11:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
== Operator features in programming languages ==
Line 35 ⟶ 37:
== What do the prefix, infix and postfix columns of the giant table mean? ==
Does a 'yes' mean that the language has at least one operator that falls into that category?
== 'bifix' operators ==
The only source that mentions bifix operators is https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-14455-4_34, and if I read it correctly, it actually refers to "bifix languages" which it defines as languages that have both prefixes and suffixes. So I don't think bifix operators exist (in a notable way), and should be removed from the article. [[User:Yodo9000|Yodo9000]] ([[User talk:Yodo9000|talk]]) 13:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
| |||