Re: else ladders practice

fir wrote:

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
>
>

note in fact both array usage like tab[5] and fuunction call like foo()
are analogues to swich case - as when you call fuctions the call is like switch and function definition sets are 'cases'