Hi Werner, > > And .whilex? If we've a new .ifx, which I think is a bit clunky, > > maybe we should bear in mind having a .elif and .else too that don't > > need the .ifx to be .iex. (Or .elsif; Python use elif, Perl elsif. > > elsif at least sounds like `else if'.) > > I could live with that. It's a set of four or five new commands, > which I consider a minor issue.
Perhaps then .iff since it's still one syllable, sounds the same, and is familiar from its mathematical meaning; `if and only if'. .whilex could be .for instead, taking a leaf from https://golang.org/ref/spec#For_statements which doesn't have a `while' reserved word, but instead for { } Endless loop. for a > b { } While loop. for i = 0; i < 42; i++ { } Initialise, test, increment. > But (E; expr) would cover only a minor subset of possible improvements > – it would be still necessary to provide backwards compatibility. Would it? That form could reject backwards compatibility; only new format allowed, just as after .iff. I don't see why old syntax has to be handled if it currently makes no sense to use `E' after the `('. > A new new `if' implementation, however, could assign the standard > precendence values to operators, provide a richer set of operators, > etc., etc. Yep, that's where we want to end up. Carefully thought out, familiar, logical, not a dead end. Cheers, Ralph.
