On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
>
> Hello Corey,
>
> on elif
>> if misplaced elif
>> misplaced elif error
>> else
>> eval expression
>> => possible eval error
>> set new status if eval fine
>>
>
> Currently it is really:
>
> switch (state) {
> case NONE:
> case ELSE_TRUE:
> case ELSE_FALSE:
> success = false;
> show some error
> default:
> }
> if (success) {
> success = evaluate_expression(...);
> if (success) {
> switch (state) {
> case ...:
> default:
> }
> }
> }
>
> Which I do not find so neat. The previous one with nested switch-if-switch
> looked as bad.
That is accurate. The only positive it has is that the user only
experiences one error, and it's the first error that was encountered if
reading top-to-bottom, left to right. It is an issue of which we prioritize
- user experience or simpler code.
Now if you want to require committer opinion on this one, fine with me.
Rather than speculate on what a committer thinks of this edge case (and
making a patch for each possible theory), I'd rather just ask them what
their priorities are and which user experience they favor.
