On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 03:32:55PM +0100, Jack Jansen wrote: > Even though I'm not sure I like the switch idea (and I won't even contemplate > how Guido will react when he comes back and sees what we've been spending our > time on:-) there's one very special case of switch that I would like, and > that's the Algol 68 style switch on type. If we had something like > def foo(x): > switch type(x): > case int: > do something > case string: > do something else > this would be a nice point to hook into for something that tries to compile > Python to C or somesuch. Unfortunately, type-names/objects aren't compile-time constants, so we can't implement this without some kind of namespace-modification-notification technique. Hmm... Or perhaps we could do the normal lookup, compare the then-current 'int' vs. the one we looked up, and if they aren't equal re-initialize the jump dict.... But *shudder*. > Hmm, you would probably need a tuple-based switch as well: > switch type(x), type(y): > case int, int: > .... I think you mean 'case (int, int):' there. Constant-tuples aren't really a problem to implement, though it would require either a lot of code duplication or a bit of refactoring, which is why my proof-of-concept doesn't offer them. -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
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