operators in language reference

[John Colvin via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 12:40:26 UTC, Dominikus Dittes 
Scherkl wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 11:18:26 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 10:53:57 UTC, Dominikus Dittes 
>> Scherkl wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 10:39:01 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 10:06:20 UTC, Dominikus Dittes 
>>>> Scherkl wrote:
>>>>> There is a gapping hole in the language reference: The 
>>>>> operators are nowhere described.
>>>>> Ok, most of them are the same as in C and C++, but there 
>>>>> are subtle differences (e.g. different precedence) and some 
>>>>> are new (the floating point comparisons have their own 
>>>>> chapter and they are about to beeing deprecated, but what 
>>>>> about >>>, ^^, ^^=, =>, ., is, in ?).
>>>>> And even if they where all the same as in C or C++, not 
>>>>> everybody comes from those languages and D should be 
>>>>> understandable without such kind of background knowledge, I 
>>>>> think.
>>>>
>>>> http://dlang.org/expression.html
>>> This describes what operators (tokens) exist and what 
>>> operands they can take
>>> (form a grammar point of view), but not what they do. You may 
>>> say that's obvious, but I know languages where even "+" 
>>> doesn't do what one might expect.
>>
>> With exception of the ones that are the same in C, I can't 
>> spot any that are missing an explanation.
>>
>> I agree that it would be good to have a more beginner friendly 
>> description of them all, but to a C(++) programmer I would say 
>> that document contains the info they need.
>
> Yeah, but scattered all over the different chapters.

I meant just in http://dlang.org/expression.html. All the novel 
operators are described there, including what they do.

> And not describing those that are the same in C++ is like not 
> describing the types float and short, just because they are the 
> same in C++. I find it lacking if I have to tell a newbie "look 
> in the documentation for some other language for the definition 
> of the operators that you can't find here somewhere"

Agreed.