🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4krg5h$7tt@nntp1.best.com>, Zenin  <zenin@best.com> wrote:
 >Kazimir Kylheku <c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
 >	>snip<
 >: The programmer is forced to ``disambiguate'':
 >: 	if (....) {
 >: 		if (....) {	
 >: 			if (....) {
 >: 				statement;
 >: 			}
 >: 		}
 >: 	} else {
 >: 		statement;
 >: 	}
 >: What a PITA. (And I ain't referring to an Italian meal also known as a pizza
 >: pocket, either).
 >
 >	You don't program much, do you? :)

Actually I do program much. I wouldn't talk if I were you, read on...

 >		if( ... && ... && ... ) {
 >			statement;
 >		} else {
 >			statement;
 >		}

In your if statement, the else clause gets executed if *any one* of the
test expressions fails! ``if (1 && 1 && 0)'' will launch into the *else* clause.

In MY if statement, the else clause only gets executed it the *outermost* test
condition fails. ``if (1) if (1) if (0) statement 1; else statement2;'' will
cause *neither* statement1 *nor* statement2 to be executed!

See, the two are not equivalent at all!

Who is it who doesn't program much?

... and I still think Perl's handling of the classic if/then ambiguity during
LR parsing is a lame copout. But I like it very much otherwise...