[swift-evolution] [Pitch] Reimagining guard case/if case

[Rien]

I have tried to like this because at first it seems like a good idea.
But having let it shimmer for a while, I simply cannot muster the enthusiasm for it. Using “~=“ does not ‘feel’ right to me. Especially for a code breaking change at this stage. There are probably already a number of user defined functions out there that overload “~=“.
-1. Sorry. 

If possible, I think it would be nice to make the “case” after the “if” or “guard” optional. But that would be enough imo.
Alternatively replacing the “~=“ with a different keyword (and dropping the “case”) could also do trick, as Haravikk suggested (I do like the “matches”).

Regards,
Rien

Site: http://balancingrock.nl
Blog: http://swiftrien.blogspot.com
Github: http://github.com/Swiftrien
Project: http://swiftfire.nl




> On 24 Oct 2016, at 18:24, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> Pitch: I'd like to simplify `if case`/`guard case` to drop `case` and replace the equal sign with the pattern matching (`~=`) operator. I think it's simpler, reads better, and emphasizes "this is pattern matching" in a way the current grammar does not.
> 
> gist: https://gist.github.com/erica/1a5ce8a5157158c6400efb550778cead
> 
> Simplifying guard case/if case syntax
> 
> 	• Proposal: TBD
> 	• Author: Erica Sadun
> 	• Status: TBD
> 	• Review manager: TBD
> 
> Introduction
> 
> This proposal simplifies guard case and if case grammar. It drops the case keyword and replaces the assignment sign with the pattern matching (~=) operator. The results are simpler, they reads better, and it transfers the responsibility of saying "this is pattern matching" from case to ~=.
> 
> Swift-evolution thread: [Pitch] Reimagining guard case/if case
> 
> 
> Motivation
> 
> Swift's guard case and if case statements stand out for their unintuitive approach. They look like assignment statements but they are not assignment statements. They present difficulties for new language adopters because they combine several concepts in a confusing form. They are arguably underutilized by language experts.
> 
> Both guard case and `if case statements perform simultaneous pattern matching and conditional binding. Here are examples demonstrating their use in current Swift:
> 
> enum Result<T> { case success(T), error(Error) }
> 
> // valid Swift
> guard case let .success(value) = result
>     else { ... }
> 
> // valid Swift
> guard case .success(let value) = result
>     else { ... }
> 
> The status quo is iteratively built up in this fashion:
> 
> 	• = performs assignment
> 	• let x = performs binding
> 	• if let x = performs conditional binding
> 	• if case .foo(let x) = performs conditional binding and pattern matching
> When using if case/guard case in the absense of conditional binding, it duplicates basic pattern matching but uses less obvious semantics. These two statements are functionally identical:
> 
> if range ~= myValue { ... } // simpler
> if case range = myValue { ... } // confusing
> 
> The problems with guard case and if case include:
> 
> 	• The = operator looks like assignment and not like pattern matching (~=). 
> 	• The case layout is both too close to a switch's case but doesn't follow its syntax. In switch, a case is followed by a colon, not an equal sign.
> 	• Using the case syntax is unneccessarily wordy. It incorporates case, =, and optionally let/var assignments.
> 
> Detailed Design
> 
> This proposal replaces the current syntax with a simpler grammar that prioritizes pattern matching but mirrors basic conditional binding. The new syntax drops the case keyword and replaces = with ~=. The results look like this:
> 
> guard let .success(value) ~= result { ... }
> guard .success(let value) ~= result { ... }
> if let .success(value) ~= result { ... }
> if .success(let value) ~= result { ... }
> guard let x? ~= anOptional { ... }
> if let x? ~= anOptional { ... }
> 
> In this update:
> 
> 	• The case keyword is subsumed into the (existing) pattern matching operator
> 	• The statements adopt the existing if-let and guard-let syntax, including Optional syntactic sugar.
> if let x = anOptional { ... } // current
> if case let x? = anOptional { ... } // current, would be removed
> 
> if let x? ~= anOptional { ... } // proposed replacement for `if case`
> 
> On adopting this syntax, the two identical range tests naturally unify to this single version:
> 
> if range ~= myValue { ... } // before
> if case range = myValue { ... } // before
> 
> if range ~= myValue { ... } // after
> 
> Using pattern matching without conditional binding naturally simplifies to a standalone Boolean condition clause.
> 
> 
> Impact on Existing Code
> 
> This proposal is breaking and would require migration.
> 
> 
> Alternatives Considered
> 
> 	• Leaving the grammar as-is, albeit confusing
> 	• Retaining case and replacing the equal sign with ~= (pattern matching) or : (to match the switch statement).
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution