Guido van Rossum wrote: > On 6/22/06, Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote: >> 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. > > I'm not sure I care about that. Do you use this in teaching? How does > it help you? I just realized that my post could be misunderstood: The sentence referred to the "case"-less form. (And it's just a "feeling" thing) 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