[erlang-questions] Erlang elseif

Richard O'Keefe <>
Thu Nov 27 01:23:17 CET 2008


On 26 Nov 2008, at 9:07 pm, Daniel Rönnqvist wrote:

> To make it short; I don't want Erlang to be like C, it seems you got  
> so tangled up in your own agenda so I don't think you care anymore  
> what I am talking about. What I would like is Erlang to be able to  
> do what it does with nested cases in a better and non-nested syntax,  
> like the proposed "cond" that Jay is talking about. Then the  
> programmer could decide for them selfs if they want to use it or not.

Why is it that when people talk about other people's "agendas"
it is always an insult?

Of course I care what you are talking about; if I didn't, I would
not have replied to it in detail, considering each of your points.

Did you notice, or care, about my suggestion of an
Algol 68-inspired "; or case" (modelled on Algol 68's "ouse"
keyword) that you give you PRECISELY a non-nested syntax?
That is far more capable than 'cond' because it is not restricted
to Booleans.  How does that fail to meet your needs?

The continuing absence of a concrete case to discuss
continues to render the argument for any new syntax dubious
in the extreme.




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list