> Am 05.01.2016 um 17:29 schrieb Matthew Johnson <matt...@anandabits.com>: > > >> On Jan 5, 2016, at 10:23 AM, Sean Heber <s...@fifthace.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jan 5, 2016, at 12:29 AM, Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>> >>> I once suggested the following ternary like switch: >>> >>> let x = color ? >>> case .Red: 0xFF0000 >>> case .Green: 0x00FF00 >>> case .Blue: 0x0000FF >>> default: 0xFFFFFF >> >> This is my favorite and addresses the sort of situations I’ve run into where >> using a switch statement seems unnecessarily bulky. I’d like to see this as >> a proposal because it’d be a very useful construct on its own. >> >> Using “else” would be maybe a little odd when paired with cases, but it also >> doesn’t look bad and, I think, could be argued that it makes sense in the >> context of an expression: >> >> let x = color ? >> case .Red: 0xFF0000 >> case .Green: 0x00FF00 >> case .Blue: 0x0000FF >> else: 0xFFFFFF >> >> Then you could say this when using a boolean: >> >> let x = something ? case true: thing() else: otherThing() >> >> 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.
That's what I am thinking as well. Keep the similarities with the corresponding statement as much as possible otherwise the result will be confusing. > If you want to make this more like ternary we should just allow `:` without > any keyword for the default clause. No, please. As I just said, keep the similarities with the corresponding statement as close as possible. > 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'd prefe to keep the ternary as most compact form of a conditional instead of watering down the switch-expression. Too confusing IMO. -Thorsten _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
