- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 13:09:40 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29263
Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mike@saxonica.com
--- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> ---
Don't you immediately hit the classic "dangling else" ambiguity?
if (a=b) then if (c=d) then x else y
I remember spending the best part of a day debating alternatives for
if-then-else at a F2F, and one thing that we agreed on was that we didn't want
to allow the dangling else ambiguity - which meant either that the else clause
should be mandatory, or there should be an "end-if" or "fi" terminator. And
people preferred to require "else ()" than to require "end-if".
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2015 13:09:44 UTC