On 29 November 2005 15:27, Sara Golemon wrote:
> > Just wondering. There's another thread about goto and labels
> > running as well. If they vote for something like:
> >
> > LABEL:while (cond) {
> >
> > }
> >
> > Wouldn't this add another technical diffuculty with using ':' as a
> > namespace s
Just wondering. There's another thread about goto and labels running as
well. If they vote for something like:
LABEL:while (cond) {
}
Wouldn't this add another technical diffuculty with using ':' as a
namespace seporator?
Fortunately this is another new feature so there's no old code to bre
Oliver Grätz wrote:
Nope. Parentheses are a totally different thing here. Adding mandatory
whitespace means giving syntactic meaning to something that normally
never should have it. Meaningful whitespace is really evil. On the other
side parentheses are already there. They are an existing concept
Just wondering. There's another thread about goto and labels running as
well. If they vote for something like:
LABEL:while (cond) {
}
Wouldn't this add another technical diffuculty with using ':' as a
namespace seporator?
Oliver Grätz wrote:
Lukas Smith schrieb:
Oliver Grätz wrote:
Lukas Smith schrieb:
> Oliver Grätz wrote:
>
>
>>one absolutely needs to use namespaces inside the ternary. As such cases
>>will be pretty rare, this is no big drawback. The good thing: no
>>whitespace magic is needed!
>
>
> so you replace the need for whitespace magic with the need for
> pare
Oliver Grätz wrote:
one absolutely needs to use namespaces inside the ternary. As such cases
will be pretty rare, this is no big drawback. The good thing: no
whitespace magic is needed!
so you replace the need for whitespace magic with the need for
parentheses? you do notice you are running i
