> Well, the point is, in actual (SPAD) code we often have: > > for i in l repeat > statement0 > (cond) => "next" > statement1 > statement2 > statement3 > statement4 > statement5 > statement6 > statement7 > statement8 > statement9 > statementa > statementb > statementc > > which is, in my opinion, better to read than > > for i in l repeat > statement0 > if not cond then > statement1 > statement2 > statement3 > statement4 > statement5 > statement6 > statement7 > statement8 > statement9 > statementa > statementb > statementc
But this is again an instance where you could use the keyword iterate instead of "next". I have nothing against this. But maybe I would write if cond then iterate instead of cond => iterate; My example was for a behaviour where putting the iterate keyword instead of the string "iterate" would change the semantics. > Hm, how about void()? That should be clear enough? Why would you want to invent a convention? There is the iterate keyword. If it doesn't work properly, that is a bug and must be fixed. I am certainly against overloading programmers with lots of conventions. Think about how often you read the documentation. Ralf ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ open-axiom-devel mailing list open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
