[J3] Syntax of conditional expressions

Ondřej Čertík ondrej at certik.us
Tue Jun 29 23:01:10 UTC 2021

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021, at 4:43 PM, Van Snyder via J3 wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-06-29 at 15:29 -0700, Gary Klimowicz via J3 wrote:
> > I also agree with you. Taken your arguments to the logical conclusion, we should not have this feature at all (which is what I would prefer). But if we have to have it, please let's only do one syntax for the reasons you posted.
> > 
> > Yes. I agree. One form, for Anton's reasons and "signal value". (Obviously, I strongly prefer a concise one.)
> We already looked at requirements and decided to do this.
> Why do requirements at all if disagreements over syntax, which in our 
> process comes AFTER requirements, are allowed to undo agreed 
> functionaity?

It is very common that the abstract requirements look good, but once people can see the actual syntax, many will dislike the feature. In this case it seems the majority of the committee wants the feature and is willing to compromise on the syntax, so I expect it will get approved.


More information about the J3 mailing list