> On Dec 23, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Andrew Duncan via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In fact, I feel the same way too. I have definite views about indefinite
> pronouns. When I am teaching, I studiously avoid “it”, “this”, and “that”: at
> any given instant half the students have wandering minds, and if they miss
> the referent, they get lost. My old HyperTalk habits must be resurfacing with
> “it”. :)
>
> I still think the use case is valuable as a (natural IMHO) generalization of
> guard, and feel the annoyance of having the bound variable show up three
> times and outlast the guard, when I don’t want to use or even see it. Brent’s
> suggestion removes the second objection and alleviates the first; I’ll see
> that, but ask if we can raise it. The pitch is:
>
> guard case let .Succeed(m) = returnsResult() else let r {
> return r
> }
>
> Improvement! The question is: can we reduce this by one or two ‘r’s?
A slight generalization would be to allow for an arbitrary pattern in the
`else` clause:
guard case let .Succeed(m) = returnsResult() else case let .Failure(r) {
return r
}
with the requirement that the "guard" and "else" patterns form an exhaustive
match when taken together. That feels nicer than special-case knowledge of
two-case enums, though I admit it punishes what's likely to be a common case.
-Joe
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
