OpenEuphoria

Re: Conditional handling (was Re: Reading a file into a "sequence")

• Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo.com> Nov 18, 2004
• 428 views

Pete Lomax wrote:
> >Jason Gade wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> Be equivalent to equal(s1, s2) when found in a conditional (if, when)
> >> Have the result sequence (1, 0, 1, 1) be reduced to an atom that is TRUE if
> >> and only
> >> if all of its elements are true, again only in a conditional statement (if,
> >> when).
> >> 
> >> Personally I prefer the second example.
> Although this may be a moot point, I have to disagree completely with
> the selection of the second as "preferred". I hope you'll forgive me
> for being a bit blunt about it.
> 
> There is no point in generating a sequence if you plan to immediately
> "reduce" it to a boolean.
> 
> It would be much faster just to create the boolean in the first place.
> (Which of course I firmly believe it should do)
> 
> While the above (second) idea might be workable for equal, it would
> not be for other relational operators. For example:
> 
> "if {1,2,3} >= {1,2,2} then" creates {1,1,0} "reduced" to FALSE.
> 
> "if {1,2,3} >= {1,1,2} then" creates {1,1,0}, "reduced" to TRUE.
> 
> Unless, of course, you have a magic routine which converts {1,1,0}
> into true in some cases and false in others.
> 
> As for flexibility, the concept of arbitrarily interpreting a sequence
> as either true or false is just nonsense.
> 
> It should produce an error, as it currently does.
> 
> What the language should not do is create a sequence in situations
> where the only possible outcome of so doing is a crash.
> 
> Regards,
> Pete

Good point.  So do you think that comparison operators should work like equal
and compare in if and when statements, or should it remain as-is?

j.