[erlang-questions] Erlang elseif

Daniel Rönnqvist <>
Thu Nov 27 10:36:04 CET 2008


Yes I noticed, cared and I liked it. I was reffering to your simplification
stating that the discussion is about:
 X. I think Erlang needs to be like C.
 Y. I don't.

I think the case-or-case would be the best solution but I got the impression
that cond was a real proposal and your case-or-case was just an idea of the
top of your head. I don't think Erlang would be like C if this (or cond) was
introduced, just my opinion :)

BR,
Daniel

2008/11/27 Richard O'Keefe <>

>
> 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20081127/56973b45/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list