>> And maybe allow a special case for boolean where you can leave off the “case >> true:” part: >> >> let x = something ? thing() else: otherThing() >> >> And then you could more or less replace ternary with this new construct that >> can do even more while looking very similar and still being pretty terse and >> the addition of “else” in there makes the entire expression stand out a bit >> more than traditional ternary expressions which, I think, addresses one of >> the complaints there. > > I do not like this idea. I think a case expression should follow the case > statement where a corresponding keyword is used. If you want to make this > more like ternary we should just allow `:` without any keyword for the > default clause. > > Your suggestion that this would replace ternary and require an `else:` > instead of `:` is going to be a non-starter. You may want to read the > “frequently proposed changes” document as it explains why such a change won’t > happen.
I don’t see anything in that document that says that replacing ‘:' with ‘else:' in a ternary is necessarily a nonstarter - the ternary feature would still exist, it would only be *slightly* more verbose. The document says that one that is “better enough” hasn’t been found yet but it doesn’t read to me that it is a declared fact that “better enough” will *never* happen. In any case, replacing ternary isn’t really something I care about - but I do want switch-as-expression since I’ve run into that a *lot* in one of my current projects where I adopted enums quite heavily. My suggestion was only that such a construct *could* be massaged to also cover ternary and thus could be considered a single construct that solved two “problems”: changing ternary to stand out slightly more, and getting switch-as-expression at the same time. l8r Sean _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
