From: Christian Szegedy <szegedy@...>
Date: 2002-09-10T22:53:55+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby aesthetics

William Djaja Tjokroaminata wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Taking "if" and "unless" as the example, the point to be made is that I
> think we can make a judgment whether "unless" really contributes to the
> expressiveness of a programming language, independent of whether it is a
> built-in keyword in the language itself or not.
> 
> If we say yes, then in Ruby we will use both "if" and "unless", but then
> because "unless" is so useful, when we code in C, we are supposed to
> define the "unless macro" and make good use of both "if" and "unless".
> 
> If we say no, then there is actually no need for the keyword "unless",
> just like Python which is doing fine by being minimalist in terms of
> keywords.
> 
> This example is just a starting point, to show how we have been
> inconsistent in deciding whether it is advantageous to have a minimalist
> (in terms of keywords/verbosity) language.  It appears that our opinion
> regarding whether we like "unless" or not has been arbitrarily set by the
> language itself, whether it is built-in-ly defined or not.  (Oh, no, I am
> not really proposing to remove "unless" from Ruby, or to really add the
> "unless macro" in C.  Suppose we are to design a new language; then one of
> the questions to be answered will be, is it advantageous to be minimalist
> in keywords?  Do we really want both "if" and "unless"?)
> 
> Regards,

And what about dropping "if" and using only "unless"?

Or what about using only a (lazy) "nor" operator? You would not need any
if,or,and, etc... :)


Best Regards, Christian