On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 4:15 PM, DifferentApps info via swift-evolution <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for your pattern suggestion.
> But it would be also possible to switch between implementations with the
> proposed syntax as shown bellow:
>
> /{
> <code 1>
> }/
> do {
> <code 2>
> }
>
>
That would be greatly inferior, as you'd have to edit the code in four
distinct places, versus a single one (change #if false to #if true).
>
> Le 29 août 2016 à 22:53, Magnus Ahltorp <[email protected]> a écrit :
>
> >> 29 Aug. 2016 22:16 DifferentApps info <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The advantage is that you do not need to define a conditional flag for
> the #if.
> >
> > The good news is, you don't.
> >
> > #if false
> > print("Disabled code")
> > #endif
> >
> > which is a time-tested way of writing C code (using #if 0).
> >
> > From the Swift changelog, where they even call it an idiom of C:
> >
> > 2014-04-30
> > […]
> > * You can now use the `true` and `false` constants in build
> configurations,
> > allowing you to emulate the C idioms of `#if 0` (but spelled `#if
> false`).
> >
> > One pattern I use all the time, both in C and in Swift, is this:
> >
> > #if false
> > <experimental code>
> > #else
> > <old code>
> > #endif
> >
> > which makes it possible to switch between the implementations quickly,
> something you cannot do with the proposed syntax.
> >
> >> Code disabling (with /{...}/) is a tool useful when developing
> algorithm, and disabled code should not be aimed to remain definitively in
> a Swift file.
> >
> > Which is in no way dependent on if you use the proposed syntax,
> traditional comments, or conditional compilation.
> >
> > /Magnus
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
