On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 08:23:12PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>  raptor wrote:

>  > 

>  > hi,

>  > 

>  > we have <=> and 'cmp' operators but we don't have the conditional constroct

>  > to use better their result :

>  > May be forthcomming switch will solve this in some way, but isn't it better

>  > to have shortcut like this :

>  > 

>  > if (cond)

>  > { }

>  > else {}

>  > otherwise {}

>  > 

>  > i.e.

>  > if cond == 1  then  'then-block'

>  > if cond == 0  then  'else-block'

>  > if cond == -1  then  'otherwise-block'

>  > 

>  > If the "if" construct doesn't have "otherwise" it behave like the current

>  > "if-else"..

>  

>  Just as any tree can be represented as a binary tree, any switch

>  can be represented as a series of binary switches.  In fact given current

>  technology it must be so represented.

>  

>  So what you're talking about is a rewriting macro, you want to define

>  a syntax 

>  	raptorif($&&&)

>  and have the language work out the details.

>  

>  Sounds okay to me; I wouldn't want to overload "if" in this way though.

>  Maybe call it "if3"

>  

>  	print do {

>  		if3($A cmp $B){

>  			"They're the same"

>  		}{

>  			"$A is before $B"	

>  		}{

>  			"$B is before $A"

>  	}	};

>  

>  

>  I am reminded of the conditionals in TeX -- I think there is

>  a three-lambda if that works this way -- not sure

>  :)


guys... this idea should die a horrible death. It pretty much falls under the 
'??' idea (which had far more merit than this IMO) which TOO died a horrid 
death.

Ed