В Срд, 20/07/2005 в 21:58 -0300, Facundo Batista пишет:
> On 7/20/05, Martin Blais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well, maybe you're reading a bit too litterally into that statement.
> > To me the expression is very explicitly absent :-)More seriously,
> > reading into these rules too litera
On Thursday 2005-07-21 01:22, Martin Blais wrote:
> The Rule of Least Surprise says to me that "while:" would do the least
> unexpected thing. There are only two possibilities: the test is
> implicitly false, in which case "while:" would make no sense (i.e. the
> block would be ignored). Therefo
