> On Oct 19, 2019, at 3:21 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
> If we're going to do this, let's take the opportunity to make it even more
> useful.
Assuming this idea truly does have momentum, I hope we do not get so focused on
the `perfect` that we postpone the `good` indefinitely. There is always next
> On Oct 19, 2019, at 3:05 AM, A.L.E.C wrote:
> Imo, this would make more sense if fallthrough did something more, e.g.
> allowing
>
> case X:
> if (something) {
> fallthrough;
>}
> something-else;
> break;
> case Y:
Interesting.
What would you exp
> On Oct 19, 2019, at 12:40 PM, Kosit Supanyo wrote:
>
> Hi Internals
>
> I've just finished an implementation of 'switch-expression' that have been
> discussed recently. So I would like to present my ideas here.
This is great to see that you proactively implemented this.
> The basic syntax o
Hi Internals
I've just finished an implementation of 'switch-expression' that have been
discussed recently. So I would like to present my ideas here.
The basic syntax of switch-expression in this implementation is:
$result = switch ($expr) {
case $cond1 => $result1,
case $cond2 => $resul
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 12:06 AM A.L.E.C wrote:
> On 10/18/19 8:57 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
> Imo, this would make more sense if fallthrough did something more, e.g.
> allowing
>
> case X:
> if (something) {
> fallthrough;
> }
> something-else;
>
On 10/18/19 8:57 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>> Suggestion: `next;` instead?
>
> I am agnostic about which word is used, so I would open up for suggestions if
> others think there is a better word than `fallthrough`.
>
> As far as I care, it could be any of the following[1] as long as the
> functi
