Been thinking about the boolean case a bit more, and how to make it better than a ternary using my proposed syntax. So else could be put there to help show it is the opposite. The downside is this makes it mix keywords and operators so seems a bit jarring.
With the new form parenthesis are built into it and are required: x = ?(x == y : 49 else 3) alternatively the bang means do the opposite: x = ?(x == y : 49 ! 3) // not sure this creates a parsing problem. or if the above causes a parsing problem: x = ?(x == y : 49 | 3) Any thoughts? > On Dec 23, 2015, at 7:02 AM, Félix Cloutier via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > I know, but that won't support pattern matching. > > Félix > >> Le 23 déc. 2015 à 02:22:07, David Waite <da...@alkaline-solutions.com >> <mailto:da...@alkaline-solutions.com>> a écrit : >> >> In the case where your input is hashable, you could just do: >> >> let i = [.Red:0xff0000, .Green:0x00ff00, .Blue:0x0000ff][color] >> >> this would mean that color must be a Color and not an Optional<Color> >> (because of swift 2.x limitations) >> >> -DW >> >>> On Dec 22, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Félix Cloutier via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>> >>> I like the gist of it too, though you seem to introduce both a new keyword >>> and a new syntax. (To be clear, I like the syntax but I'm ambivalent >>> towards reusing switch instead of which.) >>> >>> My minor suggestions would to avoid braces for things that aren't scopes; >>> that either the comma or the the question mark is redundant in their >>> current position (you need a start delimiter or an end delimiter but you >>> don't need both); and that it needs a way to handle a default case if >>> enumeration isn't exhaustive (I'd do that by returning an optional). >>> >>>> let i = which color (.Red: 0xff0000, .Green: 0x00ff00, .Blue: 0x0000ff) ?? >>>> 0x000000 >>> >>> >>> Thinking out loud, once you remove the question marks it really looks like >>> a dictionary literal, so maybe it could even use square brackets to close >>> the gap. >>> >>>> let i = which color [.Red: 0xff0000, .Green: 0x00ff00, .Blue: 0x0000ff] ?? >>>> 0x000000 >>> >>> >>> I thought about subscripting a dictionary literal in place: >>> >>>> [Color.Red: 0xff0000, ...][color] ?? 0x000000 >>> >>> >>> but that won't support elaborate pattern matching, and I think that this is >>> a deal breaker for the functional folks. >>> >>> Félix >>> >>>> Le 22 déc. 2015 à 09:31:32, Charles Constant <char...@charlesism.com >>>> <mailto:char...@charlesism.com>> a écrit : >>>> >>>> Just goofing on this a little. What if we called it a "which" statement, >>>> instead of a "switch" statement? It's a bit cutesy, but not too verbose, >>>> and it makes sense if you read it aloud. >>>> >>>> let i = which color { >>>> ? .Red: 0xFF0000, >>>> ? .Green: 0x00FF00, >>>> ? .Blue: 0x00000FF >>>> } >>>> >>>> let i = which boo { >>>> ? true: 1, >>>> ? false: 0, >>>> ? nil: -1 >>>> } >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> swift-evolution mailing list >>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >> > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
