Guido van Rossum wrote: >> I've also been wondering whether the 'case' keyword is really necessary? >> Would any ambiguities or other parsing problems arise if you wrote: >> >> switch x: >> 1: foo(x) >> 2: bar(x) >> >> It is debatable whether this is more or less readable, but it seemed >> like an interesting question for the language lawyers. > > That's no problem for the parser, as long as the expressions are > indented. ABC did this. > > But I think I like an explicit case keyword better; it gives a better > error message if the indentation is forgotten. It also overthrows the notion that suites are started by statements, not by expressions. Georg
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