On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 03:30:40PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: > > Ok, once more for those in the cheap seats (no offense, it's just a lot > of people seemed to have ignored the thread until now and jumped in > without the context), this is how we got here: > > 1. Larry says loops will have "ELSE blocks" inside them. > 2. Someone suggests "loop {} else {}"
Um... actually Allison brought in the "ELSE blocks". I mean, I appreciate the complement, but I'm hardly Larry. ;) And this was after Damian indicated we might have C<else> on loops. > 3. Someone else points out that that's bad, because people will expect > elsif > 4. I point out that elsif isn't so bad, and perhaps there should be an > array of other "else" options. I still don't like the idea of C<elsif>s on loops. I already do an instant double take with C<else> of "Where's the if?" (with visions of old Wendy's commercials dancing in my head). It seems that a long string of C<elsif>s (possibly separated by other long intervening sections of code) would make the expectation even stronger when I was trying to read through someone's code. But, that is a matter of habit and could be retrained. Allison