Re: RFC: Breaking existing Euphoria functionality
Alexander Toresson wrote:
> There's a problem with the approach with changing how 'if' statements work.
> What if the comparison operator is not at the 'top' level, like if you had
> '(foo
> = bar) and (baz = quux)'? Of course, we could assume this behaviour for all
> levels in an expression in an 'if' statement, but there may very well be
> legitimate
> cases where you should not. I'm too tired to come up with any right now,
> though.
>
This would be very confusing.
MAKE NEW COMPARISON OPERATORS. No confusion, no ambiguity, and they would be
useful outside of "if" statements as well. Problem solved, no?
People are acting as if the current scheme doesn't make sense or is
inconsistent, when it is not. You are trying to force a sequence into a place
where a boolean value is supposed to go, no different than if you sent invalid
input to a function...
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
