on, and on and on blah blah - lets move on! On 2 February 2016 at 17:06, Martin <f...@mfriebe.de> wrote:
> On 02/02/2016 16:49, Sven Barth wrote: > >> >> >> > also if we are discussing (are we?) a form like >> > x:= iIf a>b iThen c iElse b; >> > then why not >> > x:= a>b ifThen c ifElse b; >> >> Because I won't add new keywords just for this feature, especially if >> they are inside normal code (I'm a bit less strict outside of routine >> bodies ;) ). >> >> Ah, ok: "iif" (as none function) is of the table too. I had not gotten > that from the discussion so far. > > But fair enough, if they would become keywords, then I agree the impact on > existing code would be potentially massive. > > In this case, I dislike the > x := if a then b else c; > > While at first easier to read (no need to know that IfThen or IIF is an > intrinsic), it resembles (I am aware it is not, but it still resembles) a > statement, and opens the door to discussions that other statement should > return values too. > Like x := y := 1; which is not desirable at all. > > > _______________________________________________ > fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org > http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal >
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
