Re: [q-lang-users] where

[Rob H. <hub...@gm...>]

If you wish to use "let" syntax, then the "let" clause could end in
"in" rather than a semi-colon:

    let N = #S - 1 in
      strip C S = strip C $ sub S 0 (N-1) if (S!N = C);

that would prevent it looking like a separate definition.

Further definitions sharing the let clause could be separated by
something like "and also" (as opposed to "and" or "and then"). I can't
see a way to provide elegant, "Q-ish" nesting without a terminating
delimiter for a let clause though. This:

    let T2 = 2*T in
      let S = T2+1 in
        f T = sin S
      //"end let"
    and also
      let P = T2-1 in
        g T = cos P;
      //"end let"
    //"end let"

would still be ambiguous: which "let" does the "and also" match? An
"end let" would just produce blocks, which Albert has already
indicated would not be in keeping with Q. It's a problem.

Rob.

PS. It's just "Mr."  :-(  but I'm perfectly happy being referred to as
just "Rob".