Re: [q-lang-users] RFC: Conditional syntax

[Tim H. <q...@st...>]

Albert Graef <Dr....@t-...> writes:

[snip]
> So what do you prefer? Multiple choices possible. :)
> 
> 0. Keep the old definitions (Ex. 0).

Backwards compatibility is always good ;)

> 1. Clauses as a tuple of (guard/pattern, value) pairs (Ex. 1).
> 2. Clauses as a stream of (guard/pattern, value) pairs (Ex. 2).

Having thought `hmm, braces, but not in the perl/C sense' I think I like 2
more. Nested-parens are all very well in a lisp/scheme language but they're
not what I see in Q. YMMV. :]

> 3. 1 or 2 with "grouping" sugar (Ex. 3).

It's certainly neat, watching other languages' switch/case layout come
about as a result of a formatting change, but as with other sugar, I'm
wondering what potential for tooth-rot it's letting in through the back
door. Any? Am I paranoid?

> 4. Don't care.

I'd say I don't mind too much. I'm just a mortal user :)

~Tim
-- 
<http://spodzone.org.uk/>