From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2004-02-05T03:29:43+09:00
Subject: Re: RCR draft for enhanced "case..when..else..end" syntax

Hi,

In message "Re: RCR draft for enhanced "case..when..else..end" syntax"
    on 04/02/05, Guoliang Cao <gcao@lemurnetworks.net> writes:

|Don't mix system design with language capabilities please. I think it's not
|a bad thing to let "case" to take more than one expressions. Just like a
|function can take any number of arguments. Why does "case" have to be
|limited to zero or one? Because all our languages are designed this way?
|(AFAIK only Ruby "case" can take 0 expressions. That's some good stuff
|introduced by Ruby, right? So why not go one step further?) Or because it's
|impossible?

Natural extension is not always a good thing.  We can inherit from one
class, hey, why not inheriting from multiple classes?  Because it
introduces complexity, mix-in is a better solution.

|Since 2.0 is a major update to 1.x, why can't we introduce new language
|constructs if they really makes sense?

You are right, we can, when (and only when) I agree with the new
design.  I personally don't see much usage of your new syntax.

							matz.