> To save people from having to re-read the thread, here is the actual
> proposal in detail again:
>
> PROPOSAL
> Replace the 'if', 'unless', 'when' statement modifiers by identically
> named lowest-precedence left-associative operators that short-circuit
> from right to left.
>
> This means 'FOO if BAR' is identical to 'BAR and FOO', except it has a
> lower precedence, and 'FOO unless BAR' is identical to 'BAR or FOO',
> except it has a lower precedence. FOO and BAR are arbitrary expressions.
> Because of left-associativity, 'FOO if BAR if BAZ' is identical to
> 'BAZ and BAR and FOO'.
>
> 'FOO when BAR' is similar to 'FOO if BAR' except BAR is matched magically
> like the rhs of the ~~ operator and an implicit 'break' occurs if true.
>
> RATIONALE
> 1. it doesn't hurt anything: existing use of the modifiers (now operators)
> remains functionally the same.
> 2. it allows new useful expressions
> 3. it is more consistent: 'if' has no reason being more special than 'and',
> 4. it shouldn't make parsing more difficult
This seems like it's just begging the question. How is a
left-associative operator "less special" than a non-associative one?
And you speak of consistency, but wouldn't it be better to have C<if>
be consistent with C<for> and C<while> rather than C<and> and C<or>?
(Seeing as C<if> is explicitly a control-flow construct)
So it's really a consistency thing. If people notice they can do:
FOO if $BAR if $BAZ;
Then they'll assume they can do:
FOO for @BAR while $BAZ;
Which they can't.
our answer is no if says Larry: so unless .doesnt;
Luke
