> On 13 Oct 2016, at 12:26, Alex Blewitt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 13 Oct 2016, at 11:06, Haravikk via swift-evolution
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 11 Oct 2016, at 19:43, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution
>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I thought this was long gone but today I found out it is still legal:
>>>
>>> switch i {
>>> case 4 ... 6: ()
>>> case 3: print("Here")
>>> default: break
>>> }
>>>
>>> Is there a motivating factor for keeping this in the language? The compiler
>>> picks up on Void and emits an error. You'd think () would produce the same
>>> results but it doesn't.
>>>
>>> — Erica
>>
>> Hopefully I'm not the only one but… how are we supposed to be doing this?
>> Because () is exactly what I've been using the entire time for cases that I
>> want to ignore (or are handled in code outside the switch). I'm going to
>> have a few dozen files to edit if there's something else I'm supposed to be
>> using…
>
> You can have a 'break' there, which is equivalent to a nop but without a
> return value. Whether that's what you're supposed to do or not is a different
> issue :)
Perhaps too philosophical a question? ^^
You're right though, I probably should be using breaks as they're more
explicit, and I suppose fallthrough should work too so all cases should be
covered without having to use (), in that case it maybe is something worth
getting rid of?
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
