Xref: utzoo comp.arch:4014 comp.lang.misc:1294
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!sri-unix!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: FORTRAN Horror
Message-ID: <800@cresswell.quintus.UUCP>
Date: 23 Mar 88 08:41:39 GMT
References: <24861@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <1135@pembina.UUCP> <10037@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com>
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 23

In article <10037@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com>, davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes:
>   The arithmetic if is one of the few good things in FORTRAN
...
>   Of course I wouldn't suggest having it be implemented as goto's, but
> some reasonable syntax, such as:
> 	evaluate (fun(4,"test") < 22)
> 	{ < 0 action }
> 	{ equal action }
> 	{ > 0 action }

What's wrong with
	typedef enum {LESS = -1, EQUAL = 0, GREATER = 1} Order;
	extern Order int_compare(int, int);

	switch (int_compare(fun(4,"test"), 22) {
	    case LESS:    ...; break;
	    case EQUAL:   ...; break;
	    case GREATER: ...; break;
	}
No new syntax needed.  Where something like this pays off is when
you are comparing strings or complicated records, and you don't
want to do it twice, but that is when you are defining your own
comparison function anyway.  This is really a comp.lang.misc issue.