<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 22 August 2011 12:28, Mark Proctor <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org">mproctor@codehaus.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="im">
On 22/08/2011 09:18, Geoffrey De Smet wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
I am not against adding new features to the language. (*)<br>
But don't call it "acc" or "accumulate", that will just confuse
everyone.<br>
</blockquote></div>
The other keyword being discussed is 'for'.<br>
<br>
Once 'for' is in place 'accumulate' will be removed from the
documentation, or atleast relegated t a deprecate stage, so it's
only there for backwards comptability.<br><font color="#888888">
</font><br></div></blockquote><div>There are two thingies now using "accumulate": the accumulate <i>phrase</i> and the accumulate <i>conditional element.</i> <br><br>The accumulate phrase:<br><ul><li>must follow "from"</li>
<li>may contain inline code (init, action, result)</li><li>may have a single accumulate function call</li></ul>The accumulate CE<br><ul><li>can be used in combination with a pattern, "not", "exists", "eval" and "forall".</li>
<li>may <i>not </i>contain inline code</li><li>may have more than one accumulate function call</li></ul>So it seems that "accumulate" is going to stay, at least for the phrase. If "for" is then used for the extended accumulate CE, there'll be "for" and "forall".<br>
<br>-W<br><i><br><br><br></i></div></div>