Stewart Gordon wrote:
> What do you think?
> 
> Stewart.
> 

I think that the switch/case issue comes up way too often, considering how little use it gets.  To date, I have only used D's switch/case to deal with win32-styled message handlers.  (maybe I'm atypical in this regard)

That having been said, I suppose that means I'm neutral on the matter. ;)

 -- andy

I think it's a great idea! Maybe, instead of 'switch', it should be 'select'. The syntax should be slightly changed, too, so as not to confuse C/C++/Java/C# programmers! Here's my idead:

select(qwert)
{
where(1) // like 'case 1'
{
// do whatever
}
where(1 .. 3)
{
// do whatever
}
else // like default
{
// do if no 'where's are true
}
}

(If you don't know, I got this syntax *sorta* from SQL)

I think it's a great idea! Maybe, instead of 'switch', it should be 'select'. The syntax should be slightly changed, too, so as not to confuse C/C++/Java/C# programmers! Here's my idead:

select(qwert)
{
where(1) // like 'case 1'
{
// do whatever
}
where(1 .. 3)
{
// do whatever
}
else // like default
{
// do if no 'where's are true
}
}

(If you don't know, I got this syntax *sorta* from SQL)

P.S. Sorry if this double-posts :(

Andy Friesen wrote:

> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Stewart.
>>
>
> I think that the switch/case issue comes up way too often, considering how little use it gets.  To date, I have only used D's switch/case to deal with win32-styled message handlers.  (maybe I'm atypical in this regard)
>
> That having been said, I suppose that means I'm neutral on the matter. ;)
>
>  -- andy


Depends what your writing.  If your were writing a state machine, then your view would probably be different.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

While it was 29/1/04 10:12 pm throughout the UK, C sprinkled little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:
> Why do people put thier responses at the bottom :P.  All that scrolling
> makes me dizzy.
<snip top of upside-down reply>

Because they're not playing Jeopardy.

However, the rest of us still shouldn't have to scroll to see it:
http://smjg.port5.com/faqs/usenet/quote.html

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Stewart Gordon wrote:

> While it was 29/1/04 10:12 pm throughout the UK, C sprinkled little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:
> 
>> Why do people put thier responses at the bottom :P.  All that scrolling
>> makes me dizzy.
> 
> <snip top of upside-down reply>
> 
> Because they're not playing Jeopardy.

LOL -- that's a good way of putting it.

While it was 29/1/04 9:26 pm throughout the UK, Stephan Wienczny sprinkled little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:

> I like that idea.
> I would make it an more generic expression instead of an block
> then you could write:
> 
> switch (qwert)
> {
>     case 1 foo();
> 
>     case 2
>     {
>         foo2();
>     }
> }
<snip top of upside-down reply>

Potential ambiguity:

	case qwert ++ yuiop;

Maybe with "code has no effect" being an error, that'll be only syntactic and not semantic ambiguity.  But allowing it anyway would destroy context-free grammar.  For that matter, will a property (which could have a side effect in itself) ever be able to take a ++?

Moreover,

	case qwert (&yuiop) (asdfg(hjkl));

could be equivalent to

	case qwert(&yuiop) { asdfg(hjkl); }

or

	case qwert { yuiop(asdfg(hjkl)); }

which would both make sense if qwert is a property.

Maybe requiring brackets like in F90

	case (qwert) ++yuiop;

would work, but still, letting that coexist in the language with the old-fashioned C syntax would still be a parsing nightmare.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

J Anderson wrote:
> 
> Depends what your writing.  If your were writing a state machine, then your view would probably be different.
> 

I usually use the GoF state pattern to implement FSMs, actually. :) It's much easier to work with.

 -- andy

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> However, the rest of us still shouldn't have to scroll to see it: http://smjg.port5.com/faqs/usenet/quote.html
I like paragraph 3 best :-)

Olaf
-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+ I Dr. rer. nat. Olaf Rogalsky     Institut fuer Theoretische Physik I I                                 Universitaet Erlangen-Nuernberg   I I Tel.: 09131 8528440             Staudtstr. 7 B3                   I I Fax.: 09131 8528444             D-91058 Erlangen                  I | rogalsky@theorie1.physik.uni-erlangen.de                          I +-------------------------------------------------------------------+

Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> However, the rest of us still shouldn't have to scroll to see it: http://smjg.port5.com/faqs/usenet/quote.html
>>

Very cool! And that program advertised there (oe-quotefix) is really cool. It even replaces smileys :)! The link doesn't work, but I could dl it from http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/downloads/OEQuoteFix1192.exe.

-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal