At 04:15 PM 4/29/02 -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 04:14:01PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> >
> > Well then, I guess we should dump "elsif" from if too. After all, it
> > could all be done with nested blocks of if/else....
>
>But C<elsif> is different. You use it all the time. The frequency with
>which you'd need a loop that leads into another loop that leads into a
>conditional isn't worthy of special keywords for each combination. It's
>like coming up with a catchy word for "that place on the corner of the
>sidewalk that dips down for wheel-chairs, bicycles and strollers (er,
>prams)". It's not worth it. (Maybe there is such a word, but I don't
>remember it because I don't use it.)
It's a "curb cut".
> > If we're to keep if the same, and add an else to loops, I think the
> > syntax should be unified.
>
>There is a time for unification and a time for differentiation. Total
>unification would take us back to assembly, "There can be only jumps."
>Everything is a balance.
So my question is, what do we lose from putting into the language something
which will get very little use, except that a few people will no doubt
enjoy it and insist they can't live without it?
I'm starting to wonder whether some features should be optional...
use extended qw(loop_syntax);
--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies
