Am 05.02.2016 10:46 schrieb "Lukasz Sokol" <el.es...@gmail.com>: > > On 05/02/16 09:22, Lukasz Sokol wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 04/02/16 21:33, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote: > >> > >>> Disappointed :( > >> > >> Well, such is life. I'm also disappointed that my bank account doesn't contain millions. But I learned to live with it :-) > >> > >> But all hope is not lost yet. > >> > >>> Why was it done? I thought that pretty much everyone was in favor? > >> > >> Not quite, form was also deemed important. It is a tricky balance. > >> > >> To recapitulate: > >> > >> There were various choices: > >> > >> a) not adding at all > >> b) a ? b : c > >> c) if a then b else c > >> d) iif() (or some variant thereof) > > > > what of > > e) some kind of assignment, requiring use of braces, e.g. > > x := ( if condition then truevalue else flasevalue ); > > or > > x := ( condition then truevalue else falsevalue ); > > > > ... ? > > > > It also does not clash with function names, only reuses same keywords... > > An as reusing keywords is a no-no... > > I wrote x := ( condition, true := truevalue, false:=falsevalue); in previous email; > but since true and false are constants (and reserved names) too, > > maybe, actually, a new keyword (pair) would be actually OK ? > > x := (condition; whentrue:=truevalue; whenfalse:=falsevalue); ? > > yes requiring use of assignment, braces, and assignments inside braces.
You're butchering the language even more than if-then-else could have -.- Regards, Sven
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
