🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2490@news.cerf.net> jcbhrb@nic.cerf.net (Jacob Hirbawi) writes:
>(3) Is it really elegant to write this:
>
>     IF
>       var1 < 1.0 (REAL32)
>         SEQ
>           var1 := 2.0 (REAL32)
>           var2 := 2.0 (REAL32)
>       TRUE
>         SKIP
>
>     instead of  If( var1 < 1.0 ) Seq{var1 = 2.0;var2 = 2.0;}
>
>Don't get me wrong; Occam has many innovative features; it just seems to
>me that a more sophisticated parser for the syntax would have gone a long
>way towards making it more popular -- and a long way towards keeping
>irritable people like me quieter ;-) .
>     

Ok, but I would ***MUCH*** rather the first syntax for a folding editor.
see below....

     IF
       var1 < 1.0 (REAL32)
         ...  process XYZ
       TRUE
         SKIP

     ...  an if with no idea of *structure*

In general the IF follows the syntax of a tagged protocol.  In both cases,
the following is very easy to read.

     IF
       condition 1
         ...  proc 1
       condition 2
         ...  proc 2
       condition n
         ...  proc n
       guard
         ...  proc guard


In short, I wonder if the extended syntax of Occam (esp. not free formatted)
assists in the coding with a folding editor.
Brian d'Auriol