Timon Gehr:
Formalising it is not hard,
I am not sure of this, given the amount of special cases it
already has.
The number of lines equals the Haskell example in this case.
Interestingly, you have opened an enhancement request on this
and then argued against it.
I am not against it, it's a nice syntax. But I think there are
more useful things to change/add, like syntax to destructure
tuples, that I need every 20 lines of code or so. When you put
out many suggestions, I think it's important to specify what you
think is more important and what's less important.
There is no 'right' way.
So we don't agree even on what we have to agree :-)
And having multiple correct ways to do something is often bad :-(
Bye,
bearophile
