<br>2008/11/26 Daniel Rönnqvist<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">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.<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>I don't like the argument "Then the programmer could decide for them selfs if they want to use it or not." Small concise languages are good; in general, the fewer constructs the better. <br>
<br>This doesn't mean that I'm whole heartedly against a new conditional construct, but I just don't see myself using it a whole lot. Right now I use "case" quite a lot, and I find the vast majority of my conditions involve matching patterns. I use "if" rarely; only in cases where there is not pattern to match; for example, where I have a ranged comparison (X<Y). In all cases that I have encountered so far, guards have been adequate.<br>
<br>My concern with adding a "cond" is that it would be over-used. It would be used where a "case" would be more appropriate. <br><br>D<br><br><br><br><br>