From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-13 03:25:35
Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Tobias Schwinger wrote:
>> (c0, c1, ... cN)
>>
>> (note: Application of comma operator ;-)).
>>
>>
>> ?! Why doesn't it just return another (compound) Case object and leave
>> the Sequence an unspecified implementation detail...
<...>
>
> Same here.
>
>>> * case_<I>(f) is equivalent to the original Steven interface.
>
> Change:
>
> * cases<SI>(f) is equivalent to the original Steven interface.
>
>> We could have this case swallow the index during function invocation, as
>> for manual application we probably don't want to have it. I think it's
>> typical and easy enough to just model the Case concept directly...
>
> Forgive me, I think my headache is getting in the way and I can't
> seem to parse this sentence properly. Could you please explain a
> bit more?
That sentence is a bit unclear, too.
I meant: Not forwarding the index.
If 'switch_' takes a Case Object for the cases, it might be easy enough
to just implement that concept rather than using generators.
Get well!
Regards,
Tobias