On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:49 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > On 2017-05-23 18:02, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: > > In regards to 'switch' - 'switch' in LiveCode copied the C 'switch' which > is pretty much universally considered to be one of the worst designs of > such a thing and we didn't want to repeat that 'mistake'. > I apologise for straying off topic but as one who found HyperCard to be a revelation, and then stumbled across Switch in Revolution and was just blown away (I'm pretty sure HC didn't have Switch) and now use it EVERY time I script I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to elaborate on what's wrong with LCs Switch.
I tried to google 'faults with C implementation of switch statement' and other similar searches but didn't find any smoking gun: https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/100473/Something-You-May-Not-Know-About-the-Switch-Statem https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/162615/why-dont-languages-use-explicit-fall-through-on-switch-statements In that last one the only inference I could find was that due to the probability that in 97% of use 'fall through' is not intended, a whole heap of typing could be saved if no keyword (break) was required for the 97%, and a keyword was only used to activate fall through. i.e. switch yourName case "Mark" -- do something break case "John" case "Jon" -- do somethingElse break case "Ali" -- do anotherThing break end switch would become switch yourName case "Mark" -- do something case "John" fall --or some other keyword case "Jon" -- do somethingElse case "Ali" -- do anotherThing end switch 11 less character to write. Is this the only problem with the current implementation of Switch? _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
