On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
(switch
(A) B
(B) C
(C) D
E)
The lispy way would have been
(switch
(A) (B)
(C) (D)
(E) (F)
G)
i.e. parenthesize the result as well, which
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Michael Matz m...@suse.de writes:
(switch
(A) B
(B) C
(C) D
E)
The lispy way would have been
(switch
(A) (B)
(C) (D)
(E) (F)
G)
i.e. parenthesize the result as well, which then would
Hi,
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
Similar, if the condition is an atom you should be able to leave the
parens away:
(switch
cond (minus @0 @1)
)
(given a predicate 'cond' defined appropriately).
Yes. Though techincally the condition cannot be an atom
Michael Matz m...@suse.de writes:
(switch
(A) B
(B) C
(C) D
E)
The lispy way would have been
(switch
(A) (B)
(C) (D)
(E) (F)
G)
i.e. parenthesize the result as well, which then would be unambiguously
That's just atoms vs. Expressions.
But if
Hi,
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
I know Micha detests the extra 'if' as much as the extra braces thus
would have prefered
(switch
(A) B
(B) C
(C) D
E)
The lispy way would have been
(switch
(A) (B)
(C) (D)
(E) (F)
G)
i.e. parenthesize the
Hi,
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
(switch
(A) B
(B) C
(C) D
E)
The lispy way would have been
(switch
(A) (B)
(C) (D)
(E) (F)
G)
i.e. parenthesize the result as well, which then would be unambiguously
That's just atoms vs.
On July 15, 2015 4:21:03 PM GMT+02:00, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
I know Micha detests the extra 'if' as much as the extra braces thus
would have prefered
(switch
(A) B
(B) C
(C) D
E)
The lispy way would have been
The following as promised adds a 'switch' statement. This way
(if (A)
B
(if (B)
C
(if (C)
D
E)))
can now be written as
(switch
(if (A)
B)
(if (B)
C)
(if (C)
D)
E)
the ifs immediately nested in the switch cannot have else clauses and
I reject switches that
