Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with semantics
Search options answers only
not deleted
user 1254
20
votes
Accepted
Which programming languages don't use operator precedence besides Lisp-like languages?
Smalltalk.
Everything's done with message sending, so 1 + 2 * 3 means "send * with parameter 3 to the object returned by sending the message + with parameter 2 to the object 1".
That throws people ( …
- 16.7k
7
votes
Which programming languages don't use operator precedence besides Lisp-like languages?
Prolog.
Well, kind of. There are standard operators, with standard precedence... but you can trivially define operators with arbitrary predence, because 1 + 2 is really the goal +(1, 2).
You may defin …
- 16.7k