Improvements to switch

[Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole]

On 23/04/2024 4:45 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> I've thought about it for a while now. Improving switch has a lot of 
> issues with it, such as the unusual scoping rules, the ability to goto 
> in and out of it, the ability to interleave switch/case with other 
> looping constructs (!).
> 
> It's unsalvageable.
> 
> It's better to create a new construct, let's say "match", and design an 
> unconstrained syntax for it to accommodate pattern matching in particular.
> 
> ("match" is already an identifier in common use, some other name would 
> be better.)

I was really looking forward to your recent DConf Online talk about 
matching.

It is why I have avoided this idea up until now, I wanted to see what 
you have come up with.

Same thing for sum types.

If you have any design work on this subject, I think other people not 
just myself would be interested in having a read.