• BCS (20/20) Feb 25 2006 Thoughts please:
• kellywilson nowhere.com (5/12) Feb 25 2006 I'm guessing this "writef" statement is supposed to say "Doing That"????...
• Tyro (8/17) Feb 25 2006 I seriously doubt that is what he is asking and it happens that your
• kellywilson nowhere.com (7/24) Feb 26 2006 Hey Andrew,
• Hasan Aljudy (3/37) Feb 26 2006 The match expression is now gone anyway!!
• Unknown W. Brackets (15/44) Feb 25 2006 Personally, I'd imagine that to be very strange. You can't use any
• John Demme (19/46) Feb 25 2006 In my mind, a switch-case implies two things: first, that one case will

BCS <BCS_member pathlink.com> writes:

Thoughts please:

pros?

cons?

why it won't work.

-------------
switch(str)
{
case "[Tt]his"~~:
writef("Doing this");
break;

case "[Tt]hat"~~:
writef("Doing this");
break;

case ".*somthing.*"~~:
writef("Doing somthing");
break;

default:
writef("Doing nothing");
break;
}

kellywilson nowhere.com writes:

In article <dtqosg$2l1q$1 digitaldaemon.com>, BCS says...

switch(str)
{
case "[Tt]his"~~:
writef("Doing this");
break;

case "[Tt]hat"~~:
writef("Doing this");

I'm guessing this "writef" statement is supposed to say "Doing That"??????

Just noticed it quickly ;)

Thanks,
K.Wilson

Tyro <ridimz_at yahoo.dot.com> writes:

kellywilson nowhere.com wrote:
 In article <dtqosg$2l1q$1 digitaldaemon.com>, BCS says...
 
 I'm guessing this "writef" statement is supposed to say "Doing That"??????
 
 Just noticed it quickly ;)
 
 Thanks,
 K.Wilson
 

I seriously doubt that is what he is asking and it happens that your 
intuition has misled. The switch does not work because the language does 
not support kind of feature he is trying to use. Thus: He is suggesting 
that this should be implemented and wants to know what whether or not 
you think it's a good idea.

Regards,
Andrew C. Edwards

kellywilson nowhere.com writes:

In article <dtqs7a$2onk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Tyro says...
kellywilson nowhere.com wrote:
 In article <dtqosg$2l1q$1 digitaldaemon.com>, BCS says...
 
 I'm guessing this "writef" statement is supposed to say "Doing That"??????
 
 Just noticed it quickly ;)
 
 Thanks,
 K.Wilson
 

I seriously doubt that is what he is asking and it happens that your 
intuition has misled. The switch does not work because the language does 
not support kind of feature he is trying to use. Thus: He is suggesting 
that this should be implemented and wants to know what whether or not 
you think it's a good idea.

Regards,
Andrew C. Edwards

Hey Andrew,

This wasn't actually a serious answer from me....more of a quick prod to let him
know there was a slight error. I didn't know enough about the regex/switch
syntax in D to answer his question right away.

Sorry to mislead, if I did.
Kelly Wilson

Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:

kellywilson nowhere.com wrote:
 In article <dtqs7a$2onk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Tyro says...
 
kellywilson nowhere.com wrote:

In article <dtqosg$2l1q$1 digitaldaemon.com>, BCS says...

I'm guessing this "writef" statement is supposed to say "Doing That"??????

Just noticed it quickly ;)

Thanks,
K.Wilson

I seriously doubt that is what he is asking and it happens that your 
intuition has misled. The switch does not work because the language does 
not support kind of feature he is trying to use. Thus: He is suggesting 
that this should be implemented and wants to know what whether or not 
you think it's a good idea.

Regards,
Andrew C. Edwards

 
 
 Hey Andrew,
 
 This wasn't actually a serious answer from me....more of a quick prod to let
him
 know there was a slight error. I didn't know enough about the regex/switch
 syntax in D to answer his question right away.
 
 Sorry to mislead, if I did.
 Kelly Wilson
 
 

The match expression is now gone anyway!!
Also I suspect that there's no performance advantage; there can't be.

"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:

Personally, I'd imagine that to be very strange.  You can't use any 
other operator like that in a switch, can you?

However, allowing for other comparisons might be very useful, e.g.:

switch (x, opCmp)
{
...
}

Or:

switch (x, std.regexp.test)
{
...
}

Unfortunately, this isn't very consistent with the rest of the language 
either, since it does not take callbacks like that anywhere else.

-[Unknown]


 Thoughts please:
 
 pros?
 
 cons?
 
 why it won't work.
 
 -------------
 switch(str)
 {
 case "[Tt]his"~~:
 writef("Doing this");
 break;
 
 case "[Tt]hat"~~:
 writef("Doing this");
 break;
 
 case ".*somthing.*"~~:
 writef("Doing somthing");
 break;
 
 default:
 writef("Doing nothing");
 break;
 }
 
 

John Demme <me teqdruid.com> writes:

In my mind, a switch-case implies two things:  first, that one case will
match, and two that the compiler might be able to implement it faster than
if-else blocks.  Given:
uint i;
switch(i){
case 2: break;
case 5: break;
}

Only one case will be selected, so the compiler doesn't necessarily just
convert that block of code to the associated if-else if-else code-- there
may be a faster way to execute it.  The only way for the regex cases to be
compared is linearly, so the switch is just a nicer-looking if-else block.  

Also, multiple regex cases may match the string.  The behavior here is not
obviously defined.  Does it run all of the cases which match?  Only the
first one?

I think the behavior here would be too different and possibly inconsistent
from the current switch-case behavior to be worth it for syntactic sugar.

~John Demme

BCS wrote:

 Thoughts please:
 
 pros?
 
 cons?
 
 why it won't work.
 
 -------------
 switch(str)
 {
 case "[Tt]his"~~:
 writef("Doing this");
 break;
 
 case "[Tt]hat"~~:
 writef("Doing this");
 break;
 
 case ".*somthing.*"~~:
 writef("Doing somthing");
 break;
 
 default:
 writef("Doing nothing");
 break;
 }