On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > The blocks below the given get evaluated under the following
> > conditions
>
> > all: $falsecount == 0
> > any: $truecount > 0
> > some: $falsecount > 0
> > none: $truecount == 0
> >
> > So anyway, "none" replaces the old "default" option, and the others
> > can be useful from time to time too :).
>
> Well, it's an interesting idea, but I don't think it's necessary. I
> honestly don't recall a time when this would be useful. Perhaps a
> sane example could convince me otherwise...
>
> (As a rule of thumb, always include sane, real-world-like examples in
> proposals)
I hope you can see uses for "none", because it's "default" under a
different name :).
I've only needed this one twice in my life since I first thought of it
about 3 or 4 years ago; since I didn't have this syntax at that time, I'm not
sure I could find those problems again. At the time, I designed a solution to
the problem (ie this), but neglected to note down the problem :).
One thing I *do* recall about one of those examples (this was the
looping version which used all/any/some/none; see the loop thread I started)
-- it wasn't sane :). It was a big loop -- the stuff inside was more than 150
lines (well, that's big to me, anyway :) ). Basically, I felt like the code
didn't intuitively represent what was going on, and that's bad for
maintainability when even the original programmer thinks that :).
:)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Name: Tim Nelson | Because the Creator is, |
| E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I am |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----
Version 3.1
GCS d? s: a-- C++>++++$ US+ P++ L++ E- W+++ N+ w+> M-- V- Y+>++
PGP->++ R(+) !tv B++ DI++++ D+ G e>++ h!/* y-
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
