On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 03:30:40PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>
> Ok, once more for those in the cheap seats (no offense, it's just a lot
> of people seemed to have ignored the thread until now and jumped in
> without the context), this is how we got here:
>
> 1. Larry says loops will have "ELSE blocks" inside them.
> 2. Someone suggests "loop {} else {}"
Um... actually Allison brought in the "ELSE blocks". I mean, I
appreciate the complement, but I'm hardly Larry. ;) And this was after
Damian indicated we might have C<else> on loops.
> 3. Someone else points out that that's bad, because people will expect
> elsif
> 4. I point out that elsif isn't so bad, and perhaps there should be an
> array of other "else" options.
I still don't like the idea of C<elsif>s on loops. I already do an
instant double take with C<else> of "Where's the if?" (with visions of
old Wendy's commercials dancing in my head). It seems that a long string
of C<elsif>s (possibly separated by other long intervening sections of
code) would make the expectation even stronger when I was trying to read
through someone's code. But, that is a matter of habit and could be
retrained.
Allison
