syntax idea: simplifed ifs

[Ameer Armaly]

"Derek Parnell" <derek at psych.ward> wrote in message 
news:noyfbcyf3t01$.m2gl86mb13se.dlg at 40tude.net...
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:18:55 -0400, Ameer Armaly wrote:
>
>> "dennis luehring" <dl.soluz at gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:e1ekp6$jr7$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>>> for example how often do we use constructs like
>>>
>>> if( x ==  10 && x == 20 && x == 30 )
>>>
>>> simplified:
>>> if( x == [10 && 20 && 30] )
>>>
>>> if( a >= h && b >= h && c >= h )
>>>
>>> simplified:
>>> if( [a && b && c] >= h )
>>>
>>> (just an idea)
>>>
>>> ciao dennis
>> Considering that you can't have multiple assignments to a variable, if 
>> you
>> had that many possible OR conditions,, couldn't you just use a combined
>> switch like so:
>>
>> switch(x)
>> {
>>   case 10:
>>   case 20:
>>   case 30:
>>     ...
>>   default:
>>     break;
>> }
>> This still leaves open the issue of multiple variables though; what you
>> suggest may work.
>
> The problem with 'switch' is it requires literals or consts. One can't do
> ...
>
>  switch (h)
>  {
>     case a:
>     case b:
>     case c:
>         ...
>         break;
>     default: break;
>  }
>
That's true.  In such a case I think that the above proposal might work, or 
perhaps the templates that Hasan suggested.
> -- 
> Derek
> (skype: derek.j.parnell)
> Melbourne, Australia
> "Down with mediocracy!"
> 11/04/2006 10:01:40 AM