> So, the answer to your question is: yes, I do propose that there should
> be an elsif, elsloop and elsfor. That's it. Three words, not an
> expansive list of ever-more-complex words.
Oh! I have an idea! Why don't we make the lexer just realize a prefix
"els" on any operator. Then you could do C<if .. {} elsexit>. :P
My point is that, IMO, this whole "els" thing is completely preposterous.
I'm the kind of person that likes to keep down on keywords. And I never
liked Perl5's C<elsif> anyway; I always preferred C<else if>. I really
don't understand what at all is appealing about C<elsloop>.
I don't want this thread to turn into a mindless squabble. Perhaps people
could look at the thing a different way altogether, not taking side 1 or
2, but rather 1+2i.
Here's my synopsis of how everything's gone so far:
We have the following syntaxes for elses on loops (for any kind, not just
loop).
loop ;; {} else {}
loop ;; { else {} }
loop ;; { ELSE {} }
Or replace any of these with C<otherwise>.
Furthermore, we have a couple of different ways for loops to come after
elses:
elsloop ;; {}
else loop ;; {}
else { loop ;; {} }
I don't think C<otherwisloop> has been proposed :).
If anyone has other ideas, or an insanely good reason why one of these is
optimal, we're all ears. I think we all trust Larry to make the right
decision, but he might not be God. New ideas are good.
Luke
