home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl
- Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!concert!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!foster!sherman
- From: sherman@unx.sas.com (Chris Sherman)
- Subject: Re: Problem with order of precedence, maybe
- Sender: news@unx.sas.com (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
- Message-ID: <sherman.712540921@foster>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:02:01 GMT
- References: <sherman.712450219@foster> <MERLYN.92Jul30065305@romulus.reed.edu>
- Nntp-Posting-Host: foster.unx.sas.com
- Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
- Lines: 25
-
- In <MERLYN.92Jul30065305@romulus.reed.edu> merlyn@romulus.reed.edu (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
-
- >In article <sherman.712450219@foster> sherman@unx.sas.com (Chris Sherman) writes:
- > According to the perl book, '&' comes before '!=', so theoretically, what
- > numbers between 1-4 get hit should result in the same numbers getting hit
- > on the second set of statements.
-
- >Hmm. According to *my* copy of the Camel Book (presuming that's the
- >"perl book" you are talking about), I see "&" at a *lower* precedence
- >than "!=", so I'd expected "!=" to bind more tightly, and that is in
- >fact what is happening.
-
- Opps... My mistake... After continued study of the page in question, I
- discovered that the chart is upsidedown. (IMHO, of course :) Every other
- precedence chart I have ever read (all 3 of them, or so) listed highest to
- lowest precedence from the highest point on the page to the lowest.
-
- Sorry for wasting bandwidith with my stupid question. I should RTFM
- (can we still say 'F'? :) more carefully.
-
- --
- ____/ / / __ / _ _/ ____/
- / / / / / / / Chris Sherman
- / ___ / _/ / /
- _____/ __/ __/ __/ _\ _____/ _____/ sherman@unx.sas.com
-