# \[Accepted with revision\] SE-0077 v2: Improved operator declarations

**URL:** <https://forums.swift.org/t/accepted-with-revision-se-0077-v2-improved-operator-declarations/3321>\
**Category:** Announcements\
**Created:** [July 7, 2016, 10:42pm UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/accepted-with-revision-se-0077-v2-improved-operator-declarations/3321 "2016-07-07T22:42:41Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Joe\_Groff](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/swift/user_avatar/forums.swift.org/joe_groff/32/1929_2.png) [@Joe\_Groff](https://forums.swift.org/u/Joe_Groff)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 10:42pm UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/accepted-with-revision-se-0077-v2-improved-operator-declarations/3321/1 "2016-07-07T22:42:41Z")

</div>

Proposal link: [https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0077-operator-precedence.md](https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0077-operator-precedence.md)

The second review of SE-0077, "Improved operator declarations" ran from June 29 ... July 4, 2016. The proposal has been \*accepted\* with minor revisions. This round of feedback focused on naming, both of the attributes for precedence groups and the conventions to use for naming the groups themselves:

- The community expressed a strong preference for 'higherThan' and 'lowerThan' precedence relationships over the previously-proposed 'strongerThan' and 'weakerThan', and the core team \*agrees\* that these are better terms of art. The proposal is accepted with these terms revised.

- The standard library team reviewed the proposed names for the standard precedence groups, and suggests the following minor naming revisions:

> AssignmentPrecedence  
> TernaryPrecedence  
> DefaultPrecedence  
> LogicalDisjunctionPrecedence  
> LogicalConjunctionPrecedence  
> ComparisonPrecedence  
> NilCoalescingPrecedence  
> CastingPrecedence  
> RangeFormationPrecedence  
> AdditionPrecedence  
> MultiplicationPrecedence  
> BitwiseShiftPrecedence

establishing a convention of \<Noun\>Precedence for precedence group names. The core team accepts the proposal with these revised standard precedence names.

Thanks Anton for shepherding this proposal through the review process!

-Joe

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Anton\_Zhilin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e79b87/32.png) [@Anton\_Zhilin](https://forums.swift.org/u/Anton_Zhilin)\
**Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 9:32am UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/accepted-with-revision-se-0077-v2-improved-operator-declarations/3321/2 "2016-07-08T09:32:54Z")

</div>

The syntax we ended up with is not really perfect from my point of view,  
but I assume that core team knows what they are doing :P

But I still wonder if discussion on standard precedence groups is possible  
before Swift 3.  
It does not require any implementation: if we settle on something, we will  
just need to modify Swift source where precedence groups are located.

> **···**
>
> 2016-07-08 1:42 GMT+03:00 Joe Groff via swift-evolution \< swift-evolution@swift.org\>:
> 
> > Proposal link:  
> > [https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0077-operator-precedence.md](https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0077-operator-precedence.md)
> > 
> > The second review of SE-0077, "Improved operator declarations" ran from  
> > June 29 ... July 4, 2016. The proposal has been \*\*accepted\*\* with minor  
> > revisions. This round of feedback focused on naming, both of the attributes  
> > for precedence groups and the conventions to use for naming the groups  
> > themselves:
> > 
> > - The community expressed a strong preference for 'higherThan' and  
> > 'lowerThan' precedence relationships over the previously-proposed  
> > 'strongerThan' and 'weakerThan', and the core team \*\*agrees\*\* that these  
> > are better terms of art. The proposal is accepted with these terms revised.
> > 
> > - The standard library team reviewed the proposed names for the standard  
> > precedence groups, and suggests the following minor naming revisions:
> > 
> > AssignmentPrecedence  
> > TernaryPrecedence  
> > DefaultPrecedence  
> > LogicalDisjunctionPrecedence  
> > LogicalConjunctionPrecedence  
> > ComparisonPrecedence  
> > NilCoalescingPrecedence  
> > CastingPrecedence  
> > RangeFormationPrecedence  
> > AdditionPrecedence  
> > MultiplicationPrecedence  
> > BitwiseShiftPrecedence
> > 
> > establishing a convention of \<Noun\>Precedence for precedence group names.  
> > The core team accepts the proposal with these revised standard precedence  
> > names.
> > 
> > Thanks Anton for shepherding this proposal through the review process!
> > 
> > -Joe
> > 
> > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
> > swift-evolution mailing list  
> > swift-evolution@swift.org  
> > [https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution](https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution)