> On 24/12/2017, at 9:40 AM, Cheyo Jimenez via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > What are your thoughts on `final switch` as a way to treat any enum as > exhaustible? > https://dlang.org/spec/statement.html#FinalSwitchStatement > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
I’d be very much in favour of this (qualms about the naming of the ‘final’ keyword aside - ‘complete’ or ‘exhaustive’ reads better to me). Looking back at the proposal, I noticed that something similar was mentioned that I earlier missed. In the proposal, it says: > However, this results in some of your code being impossible to test, since > you can't write a test that passes an unknown value to this switch. Is that strictly true? Would it be theoretically possible for the compiler to emit or make accessible a special ‘test’ case for non-exhaustive enums that can only be used in test modules or e.g. by a ‘EnumName(testCaseNamed:)’, constructor? There is potential for abuse there but it would address that particular issue. Regardless, I still feel something like a ‘final switch’ is necessary if this proposal is introduced, and that it fits with the ‘progressive disclosure’ notion; once you learn this keyword you have a means to check for completeness, but people unaware of it could just use a ‘default’ case as per usual and not be concerned with exhaustiveness checking. Thomas
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
