Thanks, Dan. Those seem like well-reasoned points. On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 9:33 PM 'Dan Kortschak' via golang-nuts < golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> There are two parts. The worse part is the negative conditional > (unless), which has the problem that humans are bad at negations; > nearly always when there is a complex condition with an "unless", it > needs to be mentally refactored into an "if !" (when working through > other people's bugs, I invariably — at least temporarily — inverted the > condition and replaced the "unless" with an "if"). > > The post-fix conditional syntax says a whole heap of stuff that's going > to happen, and only when you get to the end of the line do you see that > it might not. > > Putting a single positively oriented syntax, at the front of > conditional blocks greatly simplifies the thinking about what is going > to happen in a section of code. > > On Mon, 2020-11-02 at 21:22 -0800, Tyler Compton wrote: > > I don't think I'm personally sold on this proposal either, but I'm > > curious what bad experiences you've had with post-fix conditionals. I > > haven't personally used a language with post-fix conditionals and it > > sounds like that might be to my benefit :) > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "golang-nuts" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/81c874ec04cea0e9e8f73d251cccf01cfa9b9e19.camel%40kortschak.io > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAA%3DXfu1BdVrmx9kjkxPH%3DrTvVHgFyiYN_RMH1uM7YXoj2zyXHg%40mail.gmail.com.
