On Fri, 2016-08-05 at 08:57 -0700, dc0d wrote:
> In Go we can write:
>
> if _, ok := input.(*data); ok {
> //...
> }
>
> Why is it we can't do that in the case clause of a switch statement:
>
> switch {
> case x1,ok:=input.(*data1); ok && otherCond1:
> case x2,ok:=input.(*data2); ok && otherCond
It was talked about very early, and eventually made available as a feature
of select statements, where grabbing the received value might be necessary.
But the argument for switch statements never seemed strong enough.
-rob
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I don't think there is a reason as such. I don't recall anybody ever
> suggesting it.
I also run into cases where this would make things more readable on
occasion; can't think of any examples off the top of my head though.
—Sam
--
Sam
I’ve wished for it too, but I just use an else/if chain in that case.
Andy
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.c
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 8:57 AM, dc0d wrote:
> In Go we can write:
>
> if _, ok := input.(*data); ok {
> //...
> }
>
> Why is it we can't do that in the case clause of a switch statement:
>
> switch {
> case x1,ok:=input.(*data1); ok && otherCond1:
> case x2,ok:=input.(*data2); ok && otherCond2:
>
In Go we can write:
if _, ok := input.(*data); ok {
//...
}
Why is it we can't do that in the case clause of a switch statement:
switch {
case x1,ok:=input.(*data1); ok && otherCond1:
case x2,ok:=input.(*data2); ok && otherCond2:
}
(I've read the language specification - which BTW speaks about
