In a message dated Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Luke Palmer writes: > On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Trey Harris wrote: > > > Why not allow C<else if> while still allowing C<elsif> as a synonym, > > preserving backwards compatibility while still allowing all these weird > > and varied constructs people seem to have use for? > > Backwards compatability is pretty much a lost cause for Perl 6. You could > argue that it's good to keep the people who are used to it happy, but in > this case I don't think that's necessary. p52p6 should do all the > backwards compatability work.
Oops, sorry. I didn't really mean "backwards compatibility." I meant "convention". C<elsif> could still be the preferred way of writing it, while actually being a synonym for C<else if>. Even if there's a rationale here, I think we're really getting in to the realm of gratuitious changes (in the eyes of most Perl 5->6 migrants) if C<elsif> changes to C<else if>. Trey
