Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Ellery Newcomer" <ellery-newco...@utulsa.edu> wrote in message
It's a useful divergence. It's a feature that should exist. But I contend
it makes more sense to make a new construct which *is* equivalent to a
certain pattern of nested ifs (switch isn't) and incorporate your feature
into that than to shoehorn it into switch.
I definitely agree we need a new switch that isn't so stuck in C-land. And
if we got it, I'd be perfectly happy to restrict all the new stuff to the
newer switch and just let C-style switch atrophy into oblivion. But a new
switch just doesn't seem to be happening :(.
You'd still need to keep around the old switch for stuff like Duff's
Device. But I agree that it'd be nice to have a new switch for the
following reasons: could use pattern matching instead of just a list of
values, no redundant "case", no fallthrough by default, allow a more
functional programming style.
