[J3] [EXTERNAL] Re: Syntax of conditional expressions

[Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101)]

Bob's point is that this does not double the burden.   I'm not an implementor, but presumably most of the internal compiler logic applies in both cases.   If it really does double the effort, then I too am apposed.  Was trusting Bob's analysis.



On 6/29/21, 3:01 PM, "J3 on behalf of Steidel, Jon L via J3" <j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org on behalf of j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:

    I agree with Anton 100%.  Vendors get beat up for not implementing a new standard fast enough.  Let's not double the burden.

    -jon

    -----Original Message-----
    From: J3 <j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org> On Behalf Of Shterenlikht, Anton via J3
    Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 1:56 PM
    To: General J3 interest list <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>
    Cc: Shterenlikht, Anton <anton.shterenlikht at hpe.com>
    Subject: Re: [J3] Syntax of conditional expressions

    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
    > 
    >  
    >