From: Guoliang Cao <gcao@...>
Date: 2004-02-05T03:41:14+09:00
Subject: Re: RCR draft for enhanced "case..when..else..end" syntax



---- Original Message ----
> 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.

I'm fine with that. Thanks for taking a look, Matz.

Cao