precedence of the ?: operator

[aviks]

i would expect '?' to have the highest precedence. Shouldn't it?

julia> 0 + (1<0)?1:0
type error: non-boolean (Int64) used in boolean context
 in anonymous at no file

julia> 0 + ((1<0)?1:0)
0

[JeffBezanson]

I'd have to say this is a matter of taste. The problem is that sometimes you want fairly elaborate conditions:

x+y > z && foo ? 1 : 0

Your specific case (though I know it is but one example) can actually be done with int(1<0).

[aviks]

It is a matter of taste. Somehow my taste in this matter seems to be very strong... my brain refuses to parse this as anything else! it just seems more natural.

[JeffBezanson]

The spacing is very suggestive. Writing 0+(1<0) ? 1 : 0 makes it look quite different. It would almost make sense to parse this based on the whitespace, but I think most people would object.

[StefanKarpinski]

I object. Not quite sure about precedence, but I haven't had any major problems with what we have now.

[JeffBezanson]

You can never get precedence perfect. All you can do is get close, then use parentheses in non-obvious cases.

[aviks]

yes, making whitespace significant would be a huge rabbit hole. I've also been struggling with the precedence of [] and |

I'll close this issue, but is it possible to document the precedence rules in the manual?