principle of least surprise

[mbj@REDACTED]

Nick Linker <xlcr@REDACTED> wrote:
> 
> >Better than nothing of course, but wouldn't it be great to fix this
> >mis-feature and make the language better?
> >  
> >
> Hm, what, in your opinion, about the possibility to be an arbitrary 
> function (returning true or false, of course) in guards? Will it make 
> the language better?

Maybe I should have added "and more consistent".  Anyway I think
arbitrary functions in guards is an orthogonal question.  Personally I
think it would be nice but it's not that big deal.


/martin