13 May
2002
13 May
'02
7:11 p.m.
Marc Lindahl wrote:
on 5/10/02 11:32 AM, Chris Withers at chrisw@nipltd.com scrivened:
Marc Lindahl wrote:
Don't you have that now with the kludgey 'not' construct?
What is kludgey about the 'not:' construct?!
For the reasons 'else' was invented in the first place,
'else' in what context?!
I guess: prone to errors, inefficient, bulky.
Can you give any material that actually backs up these sweeping claims? ;-)
The biggest thing I see is: isn't linked to the other construct, so it's prone to errors when editing the conditions.
Well, I've already shown the way I'd do this which only has the condition in one place.... cheers, Chris