I cannot see a benefit in anything other/new than the prefix indicator
that already exists. The concept is scalable and should be used. In
input.cpp the ifelse construct used for prefix chars, that should be
converted to a switch (I already did it), is equally to the switch used
for requests. To i
Ralph Corderoy wrote (Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:17:25
+):
I favor switch before elif (and the like), at least in the sources
(do_if_request() in input.cpp) as well. ;)
Holger
> 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 o
Hello,
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
|>>> (Ex; expr )
|>
|> This is a nice idea and indeed a possible solution to the problem.
|> However, I think it's probably too restricted to cover all aspects
|> people were discussing here.
|> After reading this thread I think the best solution is to def
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> I personally don't like neither Carsten's N idea nor (X;).
> The former has the problem that a lot of letters are yet used,
> including lowercase n, meaning that there is no immediate visual
> indication that the expression is of an extended kind, so to say.
What precis
Hi Werner,
> > > (Ex; expr )
>
> This is a nice idea and indeed a possible solution to the problem.
> However, I think it's probably too restricted to cover all aspects
> people were discussing here.
...
> After reading this thread I think the best solution is to define a new
> request, for e
