Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
refactor based on overloading
Base.show
. #163base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
refactor based on overloading
Base.show
. #163Changes from 1 commit
3e533d3
1b3e25e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not entirely sure this will do the right thing for things like
1 - (2 + 3 + 4)
-- here the precedence is equal, butcompare_precedences
will returnfalse
. Perhaps that is solved by changing the>
to>=
, but will it then do the right thing for1 - (2 - 3 - 4)
?I guess the
show
method for:-
could give:+
as precedence for left and:-
for right.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree, this will not always do the right thing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not even convinced that
operator_precedence
is reliably good for latex purposes. I think one might find plenty of cases where code would need parentheses while latex would not.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If there exists such an ordering, it's pretty simple to implement your own
operator_precedence
. Otherwise one might need individualcompare_precedence(::Val, ::Val)
functions.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
individual comparisons is pretty much what I have been doing before (not saying that this it the way to go). It turned out not to be needed too frequently though.
-
and^
turned out to be the ones which needed the most care in figureing out where parentheses are needed.