Enhanced type guard syntax]
Fri Sep 19 19:35:27 CEST 2003
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:51:07 +0200
Klacke <> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 08:09:21AM -0700, Chris Pressey wrote:
> > I think you CAN throw "when" completely away IF you take this new
> > syntax proposal to its logical extreme.
> > foo(X, Y) when X == 2*Y
> > becomes
> > foo(X == 2 * Y)
> Bad, uncomprehensible.
> I don't see the point in this new propasal at all.
Brilliantly argued, sir! :)
To clarify my position: I submit that
foo(X > Y) ->
contains the exact same amount of information as
foo(X, Y) when X > Y ->
while being more concise.
I also don't think it's any more difficult to read, once you unlearn the
arbitrary convention that "comma seperates arguments".
(Not that I'm proposing it for Erlang, since such a huge change would be
lethal to backwards-compatibility. But as a language design idea in its
own right, I like it.)
More information about the erlang-questions