On Monday, April 29, 2002 3:10 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 19:06, Allison Randal wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 05:24:13PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > > Of course it brings other less wholesome things to mind like "elsfor"
> > > and "elsloop" and "if ... elsfor" and "for ... elsif ... elsloop ...
> > > else", but why not?
> >
> > Urk. And why?
> >
> > Besides, I would expect an C<elsfor> to actually be a loop of it's own,
> > on the principle of "elsif = else + if" so "elsfor = else + for".
>
> Absolutely what I thought. "elsif" would be for "thing else if" where
> "elsfor" would be "thing else for-loop". Since you got this distinction
> right off, it sounds like an intuitive enough syntax.
It's a hideous syntax. <grin>
If things go in this direction, it seems cleaner to permit C<else> to be
followed by certain statements; C<if>, C<for>, C<unless>, C<loop>, et
al., avoiding adding many (ugly!) keywords to the language.
Philip, who's always preferred 'else if' despite the extra keystrokes.
Disclaimer
This communication together with any attachments transmitted with it ('this E-mail')
is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information which is
privileged and confidential. If the reader of this E-mail is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient you are notified that any use of this E-mail is prohibited. Addressees
should ensure this E-mail is checked for viruses. The Carphone Warehouse Group PLC
makes no representations as regards the absence of viruses in this E-mail. If you have
received this E-mail in error please notify our ISe Response Team immediately by
telephone on + 44 (0)20 8896 5828 or via E-mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please then
immediately destroy this E-mail and any copies of it.
Please feel free to visit our website:
UK
http://www.carphonewarehouse.com
Group
http://www.phonehouse.com
