Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net>:
> switch EXPR:
> case CONSTANT:
> [suite]
> case CONSTANT:
> [suite]
> ...
> else:
Looks good, except that I'd indent the cases as well, i.e.
switch EXPR:
case CONSTANT:
[suite]
case CONSTANT:
[suite]
else:
[suite]
To my mind the cases are logically a subordinate part of the
switch statement, and the indentation should reflect that.
Some alternatives:
Using only one keyword:
case EXPR:
CONSTANT:
[suite]
CONSTANT:
[suite]
else:
[suite]
Using two, but reminding one less of C:
case EXPR:
of CONSTANT:
[suite]
of CONSTANT:
[suite]
else:
[suite]
Possible refinements:
* Multiple values in a case
CONSTANT, CONSTANT, ..., CONSTANT:
* Ranges in a case
CONSTANT..CONSTANT:
although that would require something other than a dict,
maybe a binary search. Also could lead to arguments about
whether the endpoint should be inclusive or exclusive!
Maybe it should be spelt
range(CONSTANT, CONSTANT):
?
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a |
Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. |
greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4