[Python-Dev] PEP 3103: A Switch/Case Statement
Robin Bryce
robinbryce at gmail.com
Tue Jun 27 10:42:24 CEST 2006
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Tue Jun 27 10:42:24 CEST 2006
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 3103: A Switch/Case Statement
- Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 3103: A Switch/Case Statement
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> PEP 3103, When to Freeze the Dispatch Dict/Option 1 2 things resonated with me for Raymond's proposal and the follow up: - It seemed agnostic to almost all of the independently contentious issues. - "is defined tightly enough to allow room for growth and elaboration over time" [Raymond]. In particular it left room for const/static/only/cached/etc to come along later. I think its worth acknowledging this in the PEP. Is nothing better than something in this case ? I don't know. > I think we need a PEP for const/static/only/cached/precomputed or > whatever people like to call it. > > Once we have (say) static, I think making the case expressions static > by default would still cover all useful cases, and would allow us to > diagnose duplicate cases reliably (which the if/elif chain semantics > don't allow IIUC). If the expectation is that static/const will evolve as a sibling pep, does this not make Raymond's suggestion any more appealing, even a little ? Is it unacceptable - or impractical - to break the addition of switch to python in two (minor version separated) steps ? Robin
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 3103: A Switch/Case Statement
- Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 3103: A Switch/Case Statement
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list