```Date: Mar 14, 2006 8:55 AM
Author: matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Re: Reason for operator precedence

bri...@encompasserve.org wrote:> In article <1142342196.542632.294210@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk writes:> >> > Tony wrote:> >> Hi all.> >>> >> Hope this isn't a silly question.> >>> >> I was wondering what the reason is for having multiple levels of operator> >> precedence?> >>> >> Phrased another way, why is it that we don't just evaluate everything from> >> left to right?> >>> >> Having multiple levels of precedence obviously adds complexity, so I assume> >> there must be some payback.  However, I don't see what it is.> >>> >> > As far as addition/subtraction vs multiplication/division is concerned,> > one reason is to ensure that the distributive property of> > multiplication works sensibly. For example, we want 3*(4 + 6) = 3*4 +> > 3*6 = 3*(6 + 4) = 3*6 + 3*4.>> Remember that what we're talking about here is merely a notational> convention.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the distributive> property of multiplication over addition.>> You can express the distributive law for multiplication over division> using parentheses:>> a*(b+c) = (a*b) + (b*c)Obviously you can. I meant to make it work without needing parentheses,but it seems that wasn't clear.
```