>> 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.
Thomas> Hmm. Perhaps. I'm not entirely convinced but it's not big an
Thomas> issue.
Well, if nothing else, I think python-mode (and maybe other Python-aware
editors?) would have to make switch a special case, because it would be the
only statement with a colon at the end that *didn't* indent its subordinate
clauses.
>> * Multiple values in a case
>> CONSTANT, CONSTANT, ..., CONSTANT:
Thomas> Meaning what ? Any one of them ? That would solve one part of
Thomas> the fallthrough problem, but would require tuple-constants to be
Thomas> parenthesised. It's probably the most pythonic solution,
Thomas> though.
We already have some places where to use tuples you have to parenthesize
them. Perhaps this is another case of that. When unparenthesized, it
represents a series of alternatives. When it does have parens it's a tuple:
switch point:
if (0,0):
do_origin()
if (10,10):
do_corner()
if None:
do_invalid()
else:
do_general(point)
Skip
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