Skip Montanaro wrote: > > >> If you think you need an annotation, you may just as well propose to > >> introduce a switch statement into the language. > > mal> True, but that would probably be even harder to get accepted on > mal> python-dev (or would it ;-) ? > > >> switch x: > >> case 'foo': > >> ... > >> case 'bar': > >> ... > >> case 42: > >> ... > > If you restrict the case values to hashable literals do you need "case"? > One new keyword would be easier than two for Guido to swallow... > > One other post I saw in this thread used explicit breaks as is required in > C. I would get rid of that. When the current case's code ends, control > flow should just jump to the end of the switch. No other block in Python > falls through like that does it? Leaving out the break statement can also > be a subtle source of errors in C code and can probably be eliminated > without much loss of expressiveness. Besides, switches (especially those > used to implement state machines) are often executed inside loops. If break > is used to terminate the current case, it's not available to break out of > the enclosing loop and you're stuck with using a try/except/raise > combination or setting some state variable and checking it at the bottom of > each loop. Very good points ! I think everybody agreed on dropping the fallthrough and break idea. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH ______________________________________________________________________ Consulting & Company: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
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