On 6/22/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > On 6/22/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Guido van Rossum wrote: > >> > >> >> I've also been wondering whether the 'case' keyword is really necessary? > >> >> Would any ambiguities or other parsing problems arise if you wrote: > >> >> > >> >> switch x: > >> >> 1: foo(x) > >> >> 2: bar(x) > >> >> > >> >> It is debatable whether this is more or less readable, but it seemed > >> >> like an interesting question for the language lawyers. > >> > > >> > That's no problem for the parser, as long as the expressions are > >> > indented. ABC did this. > >> > > >> > But I think I like an explicit case keyword better; it gives a better > >> > error message if the indentation is forgotten. > >> > >> It also overthrows the notion that suites are started by statements, not > >> by expressions. > > > > I'm not sure I care about that. Do you use this in teaching? How does > > it help you? > > I just realized that my post could be misunderstood: The sentence referred > to the "case"-less form. (And it's just a "feeling" thing)
I understood that. And I don't have the same feeling. :-) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
