On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Brian Hurt wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 brogoff@speakeasy.net wrote:
> > But it is not "if <expr> then <expr> else <expr>", it is 
> > "if <expr> <expr> <expr>" which is what people are complaining 
> > about when they say there is no if-then-else in Clean. 
> > 
> 
> They're complaining about 2 extra keywords?

Have you tried writing an if then else sequence nested at two or three 
deep in both styles? 

Perhaps the question could go back to the Clean designers too. Why are they 
worried about two measly keywords? My evil twin suggests that it's the 
well known Dutch frugality at work. I suspect that since Clean is lazy 
and was originally a lower level language, they just didn't include it. 

I agree with Markus that if-then-else is nicer to read. Haskell get's this one 
right over Clean. 

I think it's a great pity that ddr felt he had to leave, since the quarterly 
OCaml syntax flame can naturally evolve into a revised discussion. Oh well...

-- Brian


-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners