On 06 Aug 2001 00:05:51 +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
>
> Here is my revised proposal that solves all problems described above.
>
> There are 2 constructs, one is long and one is short, both may be mixed:
>
> if Next (conditions) {
> then-commands, one per line
> }
> else {
> else-commands, one per line
> }
>
> if Next (conditions) then-command
> else else-command
>
> Other one-or-zero-window commands may be used instead of "Next" as well:
> "Prev", "Current" and "None". The default if not specified is "Current".
>
> The rules are similar to C, "else" belongs to the last "if", braces may
> be used to change this. "else" part is optional. Indentation is optional.
> The "{" may only appear in "if" or "else" line, "}" should be on its own.
> The syntax seems to be unambiguous, but a more formal proof is needed.
I realize that starting with the long form would be a bit revolutionary.
But the short form is a reasonably better alternative to the optional
{ else } argument in all Condition commands.
So the construct looks like this (only the first line is mandatory):
if Condition1 (param1) Command1
elsif Condition2 (param2) Command2
else Command3
The words if-elsif-else are taken from perl. Nested if-else commands are
not allowed in the short form, i.e. more than one command "if", "else" or
"elsif" on the same line is forbidden.
This has a potential for a future extension in two directions:
1) more Condition commands may be added, and not only the ones dealing
with windows
2) command blocks using commands "{" and "}" may be added in the future
What do you think?
Regards,
Mikhael.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
