> guard
> x == 0 && a == b && c == d &&
> let y = optional, w = optional2, v = optional 3 &&
> z == 2
> else { ... }
>
> Figuring out where to break the first line into expression and into condition
> (after the `d`) could be very challenging to the compiler.
I'm not sure it is. `let` and `case` are not valid in an expression, so an `&&`
followed by `let` or `case` must be joining clauses. On the other side of
things, Swift's `&&` doesn't ever produce an optional, so if we're parsing an
expression at the top level of an if-let, an `&&` must indicate the end of the
clause. An if-case *could* theoretically include an `&&`, but pattern matching
against a boolean value seems like a fairly useless thing to do in a context
that's specifically intended to test booleans.
--
Brent Royal-Gordon
Architechies
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
