Peter Hansen wrote: > D H wrote: > >> Peter Hansen wrote: >> >>> With a case statement, on the other hand, you *know* that it must be >>> just simple conditionals (a series of x == some_constant tests), so >>> you don't need to look at all the cases, just the one that interests >>> you. >> >> >> Since you and Steve Holden agree that a case statement is useful, why >> don't you propose it for python, or add it to the wiki page for Python >> 3000. > > > Two simple reasons. > > 1. You forgot my previous comment that "in current Python the equivalent > approach is, of course, a dictionary of some kind, though it's arguable > whether this is as clean in many cases as a case statement would be."
I didn't forget that. I never read it, and I don't see the relevance to my suggestion. Now that I've read it, I would hardly call using a dictionary as a switch statement, the "equivalent". The fact that people use a dictionary as a conditional is a python wart. > 2. Just because something is "useful" doesn't mean it should be added to > Python. The bar should be set much higher, and should include at least > "and significantly better than any existing alternative way of doing the > same thing." Now go read point 1 again... ;-) Now go read my message again. I made a suggestion to you. I didn't say that a switch statement should be added myself. I would never propose that because the chances of it being added are microscopic. > My point was not to suggest that I want a case statement in Python, nor Neither was the MY point, which you seem to have inferred. > even that a case statement is a good thing to have in a language (though > it might be... it's not my place to say). My point was simply to point > out that performance is not the only reason to use a case statement. I don't think you could have misread my simple suggestion to you any more completely than you did. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
