Re: [Groff] condition: OR of two string comparisons

[Denis M. Wilson]

For the sake of othogonality and convenience it would be good to have
extended expressions usable anywhere an expression is required.
What about a new read/write number register ext to indicate how
expressions are to be interpreted?

DEnis

On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:22:54 +0100 (CET)
Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:

> 
> >> But (E; expr) would cover only a minor subset of possible
> >> improvements – it would be still necessary to provide backwards
> >> compatibility.
> > 
> > Would it?  That form could reject backwards compatibility;  only new
> > format allowed, just as after .iff.  I don't see why old syntax has
> > to be handled if it currently makes no sense to use `E' after the
> > `('.
> 
> Well, using (E;...) everywhere is tedious.  Maybe it makes more sense
> to have the slightly more verbose
> 
>   .iff
>   .then
>   .else
> 
> so that we can avoid excessive parentheses – the `.then' keyword would
> be the sentinel to stop the conditional expression.  Alternatively, we
> could mandate to always use braces:
> 
>   .iff ... \{\
>   .\}
>   .else \{\
>   .\}
> 
> 
>     Werner


--