<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><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><br class=""></div><div>-Chris</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""></body></html>