[Nickle]Boolean type, twixt, static vs global, built-in profiling

[Keith Packard]

Around 20 o'clock on Jul 29, Carl Worth wrote:

> Not unless we also do it for "for".  IMHO, the problem here
> is still that try_acquire() is just a bad idea: adapting the
> language to fit it is wrong.  Do you have a better example?

No.  The whole twixt else block was designed to cope with try_acquire.

> In any case, I'm convinced that the folks with bools should
> have to work around twixt, not the folks with exceptions.

Makes sense to me; try_acquire is generally poor practice for most 
applications anyway.

> Hate their syntax, but I guess I can live with it.  Existing
> practice and all that.

Let's stick with void as the resulting value type so that we don't have to 
deal with 'return' inside of this.  If we think of another use for this 
little syntactic gem, we can reconsider 'return'.

Without return, this should take about two minutes to implement.

> Perfect!  I assume
>   int[*] b = {2, 3};
>   foo (1, b...)
> would also be legal, which is even better.

Yes, and it's nearly implemented.

-keith


Keith Packard        XFree86 Core Team        HP Cambridge Research Lab