On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 6:46 AM Sven Schreiber <sven.schreiber(a)fu-berlin.de&gt; wrote: > sorry, here's again one of my crazy syntactic sugar ideas: I think it would be nice if hansl had a more concise way of writing a basic if-endif block, where the thing to be executed is just a single line. I agree; this is something I've thought about from time to time. I kinda like the fortran approach to the one-liner: if <condition> then <whatever> which would require "then" as a new keyword. We can discuss this when we next get a chance.

Am 14.01.2023 um 10:35 schrieb Sven Schreiber: > Am 13.01.2023 um 21:18 schrieb Cottrell, Allin: >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 6:46 AM Sven Schreiber >> <sven.schreiber(a)fu-berlin.de&gt; wrote: >>> sorry, here's again one of my crazy syntactic sugar ideas: I think it >>> would be nice if hansl had a more concise way of writing a basic if-endif >>> block, where the thing to be executed is just a single line. >> I agree; this is something I've thought about from time to time. I >> kinda like the fortran approach to the one-liner: >> >> if <condition> then <whatever> >> >> which would require "then" as a new keyword. We can discuss this when >> we next get a chance. >> > Sure, having a new keyword wouldn't be so bad. And making the > cross-connection with the different boolean message I just sent: maybe even > introducing AND and OR (all caps, presumably) as aliases for && and || > could be nice for a high-level language, like we did with TRUE and FALSE. > But let's discuss this. > One more thought on this: I guess that in a one-liner no commands would be allowed, right? It seems a bit strange to have something like: if <whatever> then ols y const x Such a constraint wouldn't be so bad, but what about the whole "genr" apparatus as a command? Something like: if <whatever> then a = 3 looks nice, but the explicit variant already looks stranger: if <whatever> then scalar a  = 3 Hm.