>> Here is another idea. Use the existing (;) notation eg as follows
>>
>> (Ex; expr )
This is a nice idea and indeed a possible solution to the problem.
However, I think it's probably too restricted to cover all aspects
people were discussing here.
> Werner, have you considered enhancing expression syntax in the past?
No. :-)
> If so, what were you ideas for fitting it into the existing syntax?
After reading this thread I think the best solution is to define a new
request, for example `.ifx' (`if' extended). Then it would be
straightforward to define a new, flexible syntax that is not hampered
by backwards compatibility.
Werner
