[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?

To: Ryan Davis <address@hidden>, Michael Vanier <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
From: David Farber <address@hidden>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:57:21 -0600
Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
In-reply-to: <F5157138-9FCE-11D7-B76C-000393CC0C3C@zenspider.com>
References: <200306160616.h5G6GKJ14244@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu>
Sender: address@hidden

At 12:48 AM 6/16/2003 -0700, Ryan Davis wrote:
>> -- perlish options to put keywords in different places
>>    for conditionals (e.g. "foo() if /bar/")
>
>Personally, I like this. It allows for more English like constructs. 
>But that is just my personal taste. If I could get rid of it, it would 
>make my job of converting the ruby grammar easier. :)

Smalltalk, of course, allows you to do this without any extra syntax--one of the nice benefits of having the control constructs written /in/ the languge itself.

david

--
David Farber
dfarber@numenor.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
  - From: Michael Vanier <mvanier@cs.caltech.edu>
- Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
  - From: Ryan Davis <ryand@zenspider.com>

References:
- Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
  - From: Michael Vanier <mvanier@cs.caltech.edu>
- Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
  - From: Ryan Davis <ryand@zenspider.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Why Images Bother People (or, at least me)
Next by Date: Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
Previous by thread: Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
Next by thread: Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread