> Knowing the basics of operator precedence should be expected. If you don't know it, you don't really know the language.
What are "the basics of operator precedence" for C++?
Yes, I'm serious. I don't think that there's any agreement on that. At best, there are a bunch of answers with significant overlap, and each non-trivial organization has at least two answers.
That's why every non-trivial organization produces software which uses multiple definitions with blurs between them for interfaces and common code. And bugs.
C++ has almost 30 precedence levels and yet folks think that lisp is unnatural.
Regardless, C++ seems to show that "Knowing the basics of operator precedence should be expected." is unreasonable, at least wrt C++.
Note that C++ isn't all that complex wrt precedence, so the real problem is with the claim. Humans can do about 10 levels of precedence. Since demonstrating precedence knowledge is not the point of a programming language....
What are "the basics of operator precedence" for C++?
Yes, I'm serious. I don't think that there's any agreement on that. At best, there are a bunch of answers with significant overlap, and each non-trivial organization has at least two answers.
That's why every non-trivial organization produces software which uses multiple definitions with blurs between them for interfaces and common code. And bugs.
C++ has almost 30 precedence levels and yet folks think that lisp is unnatural.