Greg Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> writes:
Since we place a high value on not breaking existing code, we are naturally reluctant to add new keywords.
This also works in the opposite direction. Despite all the natural barriers to adding a new keyword, it is still far easier to add a new keyword than to *remove* one from the language if it later turns out to be problematic: some portion of working code will be thereby broken, which is much more likely than the breakage caused by adding it in the first place. Hance, since it's far more difficult to go back (from complex to simple), there must be great burden of proof for the benefit in moving from simple to complex. -- \ “Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in | `\ prayer.” —Anonymous | _o__) | Ben Finney