On 18/07/18 20:45, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Jul 18, 2018, at 1:46 PM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote:> > You can make the
function yourself. That you may have problems with> typing are indicative that the language could
use a more expressive> type system, not that it was a good idea to create an intrinsic that>
could (potentially) ignore types.
I don’t remember what it did exactly. Like this maybe?
n = (x != 0) ? 10 : 20;
if x <> 0 then n := 10else n := 20;
n := IfThen(x <> 0, 10, 20);
People are probably sick of doing that and wanted a more concise statement.
I’ve even seen people do stuff like this because they’re fighting the language.
if x <> 0 then n := 10 else n := 20;
They probably wanted something like this:
n := if x <> 0 then 10 else 20;
Not too crazy in my opinion.
Without wanting to reopen the debate or appear to be criticising the
developers, ALGOL-60 did this:
FOR I := 1 STEP 6 UNTIL M DO
BEGIN PCHTX(SYTB[I], WRITEBUFFER[0],
IF M-I > 6 THEN 6 ELSE M-I+1);
WRITE (PCH,10,WRITEBUFFER[*]);
CLEAR(WRITEBUFFER[0],9)
END;
I make no apology for the layout, since that's a fragment of Wirth's own
code.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
