[swift-evolution] [Discussion] Simplifying case syntax

[Erica Sadun]

I've put together everything I have about cases and unwrapping here:

https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170306/033588.html <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170306/033588.html>

So please move the discussion there. Thanks! -- E


> On Mar 6, 2017, at 8:47 PM, T.J. Usiyan <griotspeak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I support the first part, removing `case let` in a switch. I actually prefer one let out front in many ways but I have a much stronger preference for eliminating a 'style' choice that dramatically impacts the interpretation of the code. Binding each value is more explicit, so I am fine with it winning.

I've broken it down to its own problem/solution

> 
> The `if case` stuff… I don't really agree with as much. 

I grant it's one of the things that would have gone down much better way earlier in Swift's development timeline, but that kept getting pushed forward again and again.

> 
> TJ
> 
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
> Bug report filed with warning emitting request: 
> 
> https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-4174 <https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-4174>
> 
> -- E
> 
>> On Mar 1, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Pyry Jahkola <pyry.jahkola at iki.fi <mailto:pyry.jahkola at iki.fi>> wrote:
>> 
>> I guess I should also include the example where the user actually wanted the oldValue to be "x":
>> 
>>     if case let .two(newValue, value) = example, value == oldValue { ... }
>> 
>> No surprises there, even if another conditional is required.
>> 
>> — Pyry
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170307/1166fb75/attachment.html>