From: Arno H. <aho...@in...> - 2000-12-07 23:47:43
|
> > Nested IF-blocks work already. The only thing you can't nest is twice > > the same condition, i.e. ###IF:ADMIN### .... ###IF:ADMIN### > > But I can't think of a case where such a construct is necessary. > > When you also introduce blocks for ###IF:COPY### and ##IF:LOCK## then the > problem will appear. Why do I get the feeling that you didn't read the manual? ;) a) these if-blocks already exist b) there is no problem mixing them (unless there is some bug), because if you look at the corresponding endif it says ###ENDIF:COPY###, ###ENDIF:LOCK### -- no problems with a simple straight-forward regexp. > I know, but thats just *two* flags. Three will be a problem. I cannot see a difference between the case of 2 or 3 or 100 flags. Could you give an example? > But why then not be radical about it and say "no IFs" (and BUTs :-)). You do have a point there. And maybe this would be the more logical way. Unfortunately, I didn't give this option much thought when I had to deal with the problem at hand and thus IF and later IF-blocks creeped in. I feel guilty and ashamed. I start to like this IF-less idea more and more. Maybe we should migrate? I don't know - it's not such an urgent problem. /Arno |