Operator Precedence

The table lists "addition" and "subtraction" as right-associative precendence 4 operators. This makes no sense. It should refer to the unary + and unary - operators.

Table is getting a bit messy, and maybe it should be reversed. Should it instead be based of this? --Maian 09:18, 6 September 2005 (PDT)

Sounds like a good idea, so long as terminology/wording used there is in accordance with what we used here. (all imho of course) --Callek 19:53, 12 September 2005 (PDT)
Right now it's not so messy anymore (I was referring to a previous version of this page). But how should precedence be numbered? What should have the higher precedence - higher numbers or lower numbers? --Maian 20:01, 12 September 2005 (PDT)
Erm, do forgive me, I was wading through Recent Changes, and the version I seen when I commented was the pre September 8'th version. I like it much the way it is now. My only comment is an explicit "Higher precedenced items are evaluated first" and which direction are each section interpreted, ltr or rtl. (C++ for example makes that distinction important to some developers) --Callek 20:50, 12 September 2005 (PDT)

Shouldn't the corresponding table in the Guide part be reversed as well ? Just an idea, that I was expounding upon on the talk page over there before realizing that the same discussion had already taken place here. -- Exaton 00:42, 28 March 2006 (PST)

In accordance with Talk over there, I've gone ahead with that and reversed the table in the Guide section. -- Exaton 10:28, 3 April 2006 (PDT)


Now that we have the Associativity in the table, a brief explanation on what it means may be VERY useful. --Callek 10:14, 13 September 2005 (PDT)

done --Biesi 17:23, 13 September 2005 (PDT)
Can you also document what happens when a rtl and ltr of the same precedence (e.g. new and member operators) are used together in the same expression? I'm not particularly clear on what happens there (I always use parenthesis in those cases). --Maian 21:01, 13 September 2005 (PDT)
I don't know what happens in those cases... --Biesi 05:19, 14 September 2005 (PDT)
Update the table to reflect the role of associativity when evaluating an expression with operators of same precedence-level. Maybe based-on/copy-of this table? --Fatbrain 23:59, 17 May 2008 (CET)

function operator

Where should the function operator go in this table? --Maian 07:08, 14 September 2005 (PDT)

string operators

Where are the string operators? bulk88 30 October 2008