Should we allow mixing "case" and "cases"?
I don't think so since a "cases" between several "case"'s is not recognizable enough.
With the current grammar "cases" is also allowed after "case" labels:
Example (this is currently allowed):
match(3) {
case 1: "one"
case 2: "two"
cases 3: "three", 4: "four"
default: "undefined"
}
I originally had them mutually exclusive but there was pushback and the fact that no harm would be done by mixing them - I did not see the reason why not to allow them.
You could have a couple cases each with several lines of code then a value, and then a few that are just key/value mappings….
On 2016-02-04, at 21:14:58, Maximilian Hünenberger <m.huenenberger@me.com> wrote:
Should we allow mixing "case" and "cases"?
I don't think so since a "cases" between several "case"'s is not recognizable enough.
With the current grammar "cases" is also allowed after "case" labels:
Example (this is currently allowed):
match(3) {
case 1: "one"
case 2: "two"
cases 3: "three", 4: "four"
default: "undefined"
}
I'm open to this topic. Looking for more community feedback...
In my opinion it should be either the more verbose form or the concise one.
Just like parameters in closures: You can use shorthand argument names ($0, $1, $2,...) or parameter names.
Am 04.02.2016 um 15:18 schrieb Craig Cruden <ccruden@novafore.com>:
I originally had them mutually exclusive but there was pushback and the fact that no harm would be done by mixing them - I did not see the reason why not to allow them.
You could have a couple cases each with several lines of code then a value, and then a few that are just key/value mappings….
On 2016-02-04, at 21:14:58, Maximilian Hünenberger <m.huenenberger@me.com> wrote:
Should we allow mixing "case" and "cases"?
I don't think so since a "cases" between several "case"'s is not recognizable enough.
With the current grammar "cases" is also allowed after "case" labels:
Example (this is currently allowed):
match(3) {
case 1: "one"
case 2: "two"
cases 3: "three", 4: "four"
default: "undefined"
}