On Saturday, 3 August 2013 at 19:10:19 UTC, Andre Artus wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2013 at 18:56:47 UTC, JS wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2013 at 17:45:11 UTC, w0rp wrote:
I can see you saving a little bit of typing with this, but
it's
not worth it.
Um, it can actually save a lot of type and errors.
having two places to change is very error prone.
if (cond) { }
switch(cond)
If the condition is complex and one forgets it is the same
condition then only changing one block will cause bugs.
It is not a hard feature to have AND it is worth it because it
is a near zero complex compiler implementation.
So, depending on how you define "not worth it", which I take
"I'm too lazy to implement it", you could be correct.
If the implementation is so obviously trivial why don't you
implement a proof of concept? The compiler is open source after
all.
because I have better things to do and there is an extreme
likelihood it won't be accepted.
People routinely underestimate the ripple effect that adding
'trivial' extensions to a language can have on a language.
Um, and people routinely don't think hard enough about the
problem to realize the feature is an orthogonal semantic that has
no bearing on anything but what it does.
Why do I know this?
Because the feature is short hand notation that can be directly
implemented the long way. If the long way doesn't have problems,
then the short way does not have any problems(except if your
implementation is bad, but that's not the fault of the short way).
I can write a preprocessor to do the things I need to do. I have
done it before. The problem is it is hard to make such features
robust without some grammatical context such as an ast.
