receive after

[Robert Virding]

No, the main reason is that, for better or worse, the semicolon is a 
seperator not a terminator. For the same reason you can't have/don't 
need a semicolon before the final dot in a function definition. Consistency.

Robert

Vlad Dumitrescu XX (LN/EAB) wrote:

>From: Dietmar Schaefer
>  
>
>>I am just reading http://www.erlang.se/doc/doc-5.4/doc/reference_manual/part_frame.html
>>    
>>
>
>Hello,
>
>There is a type in the documentation, the last clause in a receive or in a case must not have any semicolons after them.
>
>BTW, is there a compelling reason why that is so? Why not let all clauses end with semicolon? It's much easier to reorder them by simply copy-and-paste :-)
>
>I think I already can guess the answer - the parser would need larger lookahead to understand what's going on... Is it so?
>
>regards,
>Vlad
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20050605/3a946fc9/attachment.htm>