Suggestion: new switch statement

[Stewart Gordon]

Jeff wrote:
> How about allowing:
> 
> switch (val) {
>     case (1) {
>     doX();
>     } case (2, 3) {
>         doY();
>     } default {
>         doZ();
>     }
> )
> 
> Or would this create some horrible syntactic ambiguities? Or, on the 
> other hand, it could just be too damn ugly. ;)

Please see my proposal of the same thing from years ago:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/22722.html

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-@ C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.