At 05:30 PM 6/24/2006 -0700, Raymond Hettinger wrote: >[Phillip Eby] > > I would like to be able to use switches on types, enumerations, and the > like. > >Be careful about wanting everything and getting nothing. >My proposal is the simplest thing that gets the job done for key use cases >found >in real code.
It's ignoring at least symbolic constants and types -- which are certainly "key use cases found in real code". Besides which, this is Python. We don't select a bunch of built-in types and say "these are the only types that work". Instead, we have protocols (like __hash__ and __eq__) that any object may implement. If you don't want expressions to be implicitly lifted to function definition time, you'd probably be better off arguing to require the use of explicit 'static' for non-literal case expressions. (Your reverse mapping, by the way, is a non-starter -- it makes the code considerably more verbose and less obvious than a switch statement, even if every 'case' has to be decorated with 'static'.) _______________________________________________ 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
