Re: else ladders practice

Bart wrote:

On 04/11/2024 04:00, Tim Rentsch wrote:

fir <fir@grunge.pl> writes:
>

Tim Rentsch wrote:

>

With the understanding that I am offering more than my own opinion,
I can say that I might use any of the patterns mentioned, depending
on circumstances.  I don't think any one approach is either always
right or always wrong.

>
maybe, but some may heve some strong arguments (for use this and not
that) i may overlook

>
I acknowledge the point, but you haven't gotten any arguments,
only opinions.

>
Pretty much everything about PL design is somebody's opinion.

overally when you think and discuss such thing some conclusions may do
appear - and often soem do for me, though they are not always very clear or 'hard'
overally from this thread i noted that switch (which i already dont liked) is bad.. note those two elements of switch it is "switch"
and "Case" are in weird not obvious relation in c (and what will it
work when you mix it etc)
what i concluded was than if you do thing such way
a {  }  //this is analogon to case - named block
b {  }  //this is analogon to case - named block
n()   // here by "()" i noted call of some wariable that mey yeild 'call' to a ,b, c, d, e, f  //(in that case na would be soem enum or pointer)
c(  ) //this is analogon to case - named block
d(  ) //this is analogon to case - named block
then everything is clear - this call just selects and calls block , and block itself are just definitions and are skipped in execution until "called"
this is example of some conclusion for me from thsi thread - and i think such codes as this my own initial example should be probably done such way (though it is not c, i know