On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 03:46:47 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 02:48:27 +0200
"bearophile" <bearophileh...@lycos.com> wrote:
Idan Arye:
> You can't do those things with `switch` because it's a
> statement.
In various Reddit threads I see people almost angry against
the statement-expression distinction in contemporary
programming languages. I am just starting to understand them.
I've never seen a big problem with the statement vs expression
distinction, and I think the "statements == expresions"
languages
sometimes takes things slightly overboard in the process of
forcing them
into the same mold. However, I've *definitely* wished on many
occasions that D's switch could be used as an expression like
in Haxe.
Having D's `switch` be an expression is problematic, since D does
not have the convention of
blocks-returning-the-value-of-the-last-statement, and since D is
statically typed - adding this might cause unwanted implicit
conversions.
Maybe it could be pulled off with a syntax similar to Scala:
switch(x){
case 1 => ...
case 2 => ...
}
This will also make it look similar to the function literal
style, where using `=>` means you are gonna write the function's
body as the return expression instead of as a block.
In the meanwhile, we can use `predSwitch` - if I only knew where
to put it...
