<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div><br></div><div>Am 20.01.2016 um 18:13 schrieb Chris Lattner <<a href="mailto:clattner@apple.com">clattner@apple.com</a>>:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 20, 2016, at 8:22 AM, Thorsten Seitz <<a href="mailto:tseitz42@icloud.com" class="">tseitz42@icloud.com</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">I’m not sure I understand. What specific case do you mean and what composability is lost with the unary function approach?</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’m saying that tying closure expressions and switch expressions together makes it inconvenient when you want a local switch in a non-function context.</div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""><div class="">I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I still don't understand. Using the global match() function you can easily provide the function context and place the switch locally everywhere an expression is possible.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Ah, that is what I missed. I thought that you were proposing match to be a keyword, not a standard library function. Ok, I see how it fits together now.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Ah, glad to see it was just a misunderstanding :-)<div><br></div><div>-Thorsten <br></div></body></html>