Precedence UpTee RoundImplies

[mmatera]

This PR fixes the values for the precedence of UpTee and RoundImplies operators. To arrive at these values, I tested how WMA parses expressions like

a\[UpTee]b\[RoundImplies]c

which produces the FullForm expression RoundImplies[UpTee[a,b],c]. Also, I try to check what are the InputForm and OutputForm of this expression, but RoundImplies is not formatted as an infix operator.
UpTee[a, RoundImplies[b, c]] // InputForm
results in a \[UpTee] RoundImplies[b, c]

[rocky]

which produces the FullForm expression RoundImplies[UpTee[a,b],c]. Also, I try to check what are the InputForm and OutputForm of this expression, but RoundImplies is not formatted as an infix operator.

Perhaps then, RoundTreeImplies is not an infix operator. It is also not listed as Built-in Symbol nor is it listed under Operators

Just because the Precedence[] function returns an integer value for whatever input symbol you give it, does not seem to mean the Symbol is an operator. Precedence[Foo] and Precedence[5] seem to return integer values.

[mmatera]

Ok, but it is parsed as it was an infix operator. It is simply an inconsistency of the behavior in WMA.

[rocky]

Ok, but it is parsed as it was an infix operator. It is simply an inconsistency of the behavior in WMA.

Good point. Looking again at https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/character/RoundImplies.html the fact that there is a link to Operators and given the fact there is a specification that this groups right, suggests that this is an operator, but not one were there is an output boxing rule associated with it.

We could remove the format/boxing rule here, but if it seems like a WMA misfeature I am not sure it is worth the bother.

The main thing though here is to jot down what the situation is inside YAML comments.

[mmatera]

Ok, but it is parsed as it was an infix operator. It is simply an inconsistency of the behavior in WMA.

Good point. Looking again at https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/character/RoundImplies.html the fact that there is a link to Operators and given the fact there is a specification that this groups right, suggests that this is an operator, but not one were there is an output boxing rule associated with it.

We could remove the boxing rule here, but if it seems like a WMA misfeature I am not sure it is worth the bother.

The main thing though here is to jot down what the situation is inside YAML comments.

Regarding the values, it would be interesting to see what @rljacobson has to say about.

[rocky]

Why must it be ~193? Please write an isolated test that demonstrates this. Thanks.

[rocky]

An operational test demonstrates and ensures this, please?