> On Jan 9, 2017, at 2:28 PM, Guillaume Lessard via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On 9 janv. 2017, at 10:54, Tim Shadel via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Enums get large, and they get complicated because the code for each case >> gets sliced up and scattered across many functions. It becomes a "one of >> these things is not like the other" situation because writing functions >> inside enums is unlike writing functions in any other part of Swift code. > > The problem I see with this is that enums and their functions inherently > multiply each other. If I have 3 cases and 3 functions or properties, there > are 9 implementation details, no matter how they're organized. There can be 3 > functions/properties, each with a 3-case switch, or there can be 3 enum cases > each with 3 strange, partial functions/properties. > > I can see why someone might prefer one over the other, but is either way > truly better? The current way this works at least has the merit of not > requiring a special dialect for enums.
I’m not sure how to argue this, but I feel pretty strongly that something more like this proposed organization *is* actually better. That said, I do not think this conflicts with the current design of enums, however, so this is likely purely additive. The current design makes some situations almost comically verbose and disorganized, IMO, but it *is* right for other situations. We may want to have both. l8r Sean _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
