-0.5 against keeping "cases".
I see it as a replacement for dictionary literal "pattern matching":
[1 : "one", 2 : "two", 3 : "three"] ?? "undefined"
cases 1 : "one", 2 : "two", 3 : "three"
"cases" adds exhaustiveness and is relatively concise.
Even though it would be nice to have but I don’t think that I would use it frequently.
In addition, to be more consistent with "case", "cases" would introduce pattern matching which doesn’t seem right with this concise syntax.
Can we have a vote on removing / keeping the cases clause. I personally would not typically use it, but there was a split on whether to keep it or delete it so I just kept it in the original until — as I expected — it would be dropped during review (assuming it has a chance of passing).
I though, do not find cases to be particularly hard to read if you have 10 key/value pairs over two lines…. and no mixture….. readability is of the sample in the document is concise in that example and quite readable for me (but I would probably still not use it).