[J3] Syntax of conditional expressions

Shterenlikht, Anton anton.shterenlikht at hpe.com
Tue Jun 29 18:56:00 UTC 2021


In general I'm against having multiple syntax
for the same feature.
There must be a very good reason to allow this -
the standard is fat enough already.

Seems to me it's precisely the role of J3
to choose a single syntax from all suggestions
put forward.

Anton

> On 29 Jun 2021, at 19:35, Damian Rouson via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> 
> Ditto.  I would be happy to see both a keyword form and a concise form. 
> 
> Damian
> 
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 10:48 AM Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> I almost mentioned that possibility last night, but was unaware of any precedent.   I would certainly not object to that approach.
> 
>  
> 
> From: J3 <j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org> on behalf of j3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>
> Reply-To: j3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>
> Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 1:25 PM
> To: J3 List <j3 at j3-fortran.org>
> Cc: Robert Corbett <rpcorbett at att.net>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [J3] Syntax of conditional expressions
> 
>  
> 
> The choice between the verbose and concise
> 
> forms of conditional expressions was very
> 
> close. I would not object to including both
> 
> forms in the language.  There is a precedent.
> 
> Algol 68 had both verbose and concise forms
> 
> of conditional expressions.  The extra
> 
> effort needed to implement two syntactic
> 
> forms instead of one is small.  I would use
> 
> only the concise form, but I would not have
> 
> trouble reading codes that used either form.
> 
>  
> 
> Robert Corbett
> 
>  
> 



More information about the J3 mailing list