Re: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switch statement

[John Porter]

Glenn Linderman wrote:
> 
> This is not to detract from the ideas of higher order functions or curried
> whatever, but I
> don't think those are or should be necessary to a powerful switch statement.

I vote thus: to have RFC 22 rejected (29 rules?!), and RFC 23 accepted,
with appropriate ramifications/extensions, so that ppl can write
switch-like constructs however they want.

-- 
John Porter