For the sake of othogonality and convenience it would be good to have
extended expressions usable anywhere an expression is required.
What about a new read/write number register ext to indicate how
expressions are to be interpreted?
DEnis
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:22:54 +0100 (CET)
Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> >> But (E; expr) would cover only a minor subset of possible
> >> improvements – it would be still necessary to provide backwards
> >> compatibility.
> >
> > Would it? That form could reject backwards compatibility; only new
> > format allowed, just as after .iff. I don't see why old syntax has
> > to be handled if it currently makes no sense to use `E' after the
> > `('.
>
> Well, using (E;...) everywhere is tedious. Maybe it makes more sense
> to have the slightly more verbose
>
> .iff
> .then
> .else
>
> so that we can avoid excessive parentheses – the `.then' keyword would
> be the sentinel to stop the conditional expression. Alternatively, we
> could mandate to always use braces:
>
> .iff ... \{\
> .\}
> .else \{\
> .\}
>
>
> Werner
--
