Re: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switch statement

[skud]

On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 05:16:15PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Glenn Linderman wrote:
>> 
>> This is not to detract from the ideas of higher order functions or curried
>> whatever, but I
>> don't think those are or should be necessary to a powerful switch statement.
>
>I vote thus: to have RFC 22 rejected (29 rules?!), and RFC 23 accepted,
>with appropriate ramifications/extensions, so that ppl can write
>switch-like constructs however they want.

Vote all you like :P

I'm not going to be "rejecting" any language RFCs unless there is an
overwhelming, near-unanimous movement against them.  Even then, I'm more
likely to ask the author to redraft or withdraw their RFC, at their own
discretion.

K.

-- 
Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://netizen.com.au/
Open Source development, consulting and solutions
Level 10, 500 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3000
Phone: +61 3 9614 0949  Fax: +61 3 9614 0948  Mobile: +61 410 664 994