[J3] Syntax of conditional expressions

[Shterenlikht, Anton]

Hi Tom

I wasn't even talking about implementation costs.
It's just a bad idea to have multiple syntax
for a feature, only because the committee
could not agree... 

just toss a coin - it's just a matter
of syntax, the feature will be available
either way.

Doesn't matter which way I voted,
I can live with either choice.
The committee is specifically trusted
and tasked by WG5 to make decisions like this.

A very prolonged and detailed discussion has
taken place, all opinions were heard,
the choice is down to only two -
J3 should just choose one or the other.

In fact, I'd urge the DATA subgroup to
make that decision, having heard all arguments,
and bring the paper for vote with no more
straw votes.

Multiple syntax is bad for teaching,
bad for learning, bad for porting,
bad for maintenance,
bad for any automation.

Each of the above might not be a big problem,
but still not helpful.

Anton

> On 29 Jun 2021, at 20:15, Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) <thomas.l.clune at nasa.gov> wrote:
> 
> Anton,
> 
> The point is that the committee is effectively divided on the issue while any given member generally agrees that there is some form that works.
> 
> I.e., this might be a case where having 2 expressions is the lesser evil than losing the feature over a more trivial issue of preferences.   Should be rarely used, and I'm not exactly advocating it here.   I stated I was not opposed to it in this case.
> 
> - Tom
> 
> On 6/29/21, 2:56 PM, "J3 on behalf of Shterenlikht, Anton via J3" <j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org on behalf of j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> 
>    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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>