minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish89•edit-26 months agoI would have bought it if they said ifnot instead, it’s the same number of characters and wouldn’t require a major parser overhaul to support keywords with a ’ in the name.
minus-squarePup Birulinkfedilink45•6 months agoi mean, “unless” tends to be the usual term for an “if not” keyword in languages that implement such a thing
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish21•6 months agoWhich is awful and incredibly confusing. I hate ruby
minus-squarePup Birulinkfedilink3•6 months agototally agree; just saying that if it’s GOT to be something, that something should probably be unless… unless . . .
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•6 months agoI find that you need to choose carefully when to use it. Simple cases tend to be alright. Larger, more complex conditions shouldn’t touch it.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish14•6 months agoYeah, to be clear, I don’t like it, I don’t like it one bit:-P.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•6 months ago*ifn’t* Oh dear Lord what have I done!? :-P
I would have bought it if they said ifnot instead, it’s the same number of characters and wouldn’t require a major parser overhaul to support keywords with a ’ in the name.
i mean, “unless” tends to be the usual term for an “if not” keyword in languages that implement such a thing
Which is awful and incredibly confusing. I hate ruby
And Perl
And my axe!
totally agree; just saying that if it’s GOT to be something, that something should probably be unless… unless . . .
I find that you need to choose carefully when to use it. Simple cases tend to be alright. Larger, more complex conditions shouldn’t touch it.
Yeah, to be clear, I don’t like it, I don’t like it one bit:-P.
If not anybody have time for that.
*ifn’t*
Oh dear Lord what have I done!? :-P