On 22 April 2014 18:59, Bruce Leban bruce-at-leapyear.org |python-ideas-at-python.org| <vajg1g2cqt@sneakemail.com> wrote:
My point is that this Case class does what you want with no language changes.
This is not correct. As I already said, I _would_ have a switch statement that is simpler to code than an if-elif chain. On the contrary your class creates code that is more complicated than an if-elif chain. Furthermore your class implements comparators other than "in" and "==", and this is not my goal. I quote what I wrote before:
I also thought about a syntax like this: "case" comparator case_expr ":" but IMHO it's too verbose for the typical uses of switch. If you want flexibility, you can always use if-elif.
And about simplicity, if I sacrifice the fallback and make the "break" the default and unique behaviour, I don't need "elcase" and my syntax will be more easy than before: switch tarot case 0: card = "Fool" case 1: card = "Alan Moore" case 2: card = "High Priestess" <etc....> I think this is less complicated to read and it's more practical, since usually you want to "break". If you don't want to "break", you can create another switch. Probably I have to not use "switch" and "case", since it seems a C switch, while its behaviour is completely different now (C "case" falls back by default and can break, while this "case" breaks by default and can't fall back). Maybe something like dispatch-case, or inspect-case.