On 9/13/06, Axel Liljencrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A user on IRC recently suggested that it should be possible to specify > what an end block actually ends, like: > > if false > echo this never happens > end if
I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this feature. If it is to make it clear which block the end-command ends, then why not use block-specific end commands, like "fi" for "if", etc? This feature makes the language more complicated, and so makes code harder to read. To understand an if-statement that has an end condition, I now have to remember to check not only its if-condition but also the end-condition. I expect that more bugs will occur from forgetting to check this, than the bugs avoided by it. Even the fact that a block can end in more than one way would make code harder to read; for example if both ``end'' and ``fi'' end an if-block. It is better to choose one and stick to it. > This would be caught before trying to execute the file/command: > > if true > echo nor will this > end begin So the ``echo`` command is not executed and the status after executing the ``if`` block is 1? Does this signal a syntax error? Does it keep the expression on the command line, as when you enter, say if true; echo nor will this; > While this loop will execute _once_ after which time the end command will > fail: > > for i in 1 2 3; echo $i; end (echo no) Why doesn't it do the same as with the ``if`` block when the end condition fails, namley to fail before executing the body? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Fish-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
