[Python-Dev] Re: Extended Function syntax (original) (raw)

Paul Moore lists@morpheus.demon.co.uk
Sun, 02 Feb 2003 16:55:25 +0000

Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> writes:

Hmm, you could even craft your own case statement with his suggestion:

switch(expr): case(val1): block1 case(val2): block2 default: block3 This actually makes me worry -- I didn't plan thunks to be the answer to all problems. A new idea that could cause a paradigm landslide is not necessarily right.

I can see your reservations here. But I'm not sure I share them. A new idea that can be misused isn't necessarily wrong, either...

[And I don't know that I see this as "misuse" in any case.]

To be honest, the fact that people can implement switch statements using this feature doesn't mean that they will. And even if they do, it doesn't mean that the implementation will be used. After all, people could do some pretty scary things with the bytecodehacks module, if they wanted to...

The obvious issues are dependency on an extra module, and performance. And even if a switch module was available, you'd need to import from it if you wanted to use the construct, so you'd presumably be aware of what you were getting.

It's just a new tool in the toolbox. When you first get a hammer, everything looks like a nail for a while, but after a bit you get a sense of perspective again.

Paul.

This signature intentionally left blank