Re: Inline VALOF

["A.E.Lawrence" <A.E.Lawrence@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Barry Cook wrote:
> All,
> 
> Perhaps we should be selective in applying Occam's razor - there are
> many things that are more 'complex' than they need to be but that
> 'complexity' introduces convenience which is of more value.
[..snip..]

>>> Won't taking VALOF out upset the BCPL community? I think we once
>>> supported
>>> mixed occam1/BCPL on the Atari ST and maybe the Sinclair QL.
>>>
>>> More seriously, could occam-pi support something like the B ? E : E'
>>> syntax of C and Java or the E if B else E' of Python 2.5? It might be an
>>> appropriate replacement.
>>
>>
>> Would this not violate the "razor"? Quite apart from my instinctive
>> repugnance :-)

While it wouldn't apply to Denis's suggestion, I would worry about
anything that made formal and informal reasoning about programs harder.
But I guess we are drifting away from VALOF...

I favour retension for the reasons David highlighted, but acknowledge
Adam's problems with "standard" tools and languages.

Adrian