Extend switch .. case statement for Object types and simple expressions
Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de
Fri May 29 08:33:42 PDT 2009
Am 28.05.2009 21:36, Joseph D. Darcy schrieb:
> Yes, the specification section essentially fails to explain what the
> construct is intended to mean, which alone is grounds for
> disqualification. In any case (pun intended), since this proposal was
> not selected for further consideration continued discussion of it in
> this forum is superfluous.
Thanks for explaining this.
Hopefully I've learned enough from this round, and can provide better
proposal next coin project.
Yes, it's too late.
> Neal Gafter wrote:
>> I don't think Joe is complaining about examples. Examples are nice
>> for motivating and teaching language changes, but not for fully
>> understanding them. Your specification is very short and doesn't
>> give enough detail to understand or evaluate the proposal. You
>> suggest "stopping" where the changes seem too radical, but the
>> specification doesn't appear to have any separable parts.
I meant this in referring to the given examples.
Additionally, it's hard for me to understand, what it may be, which is
>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Ulf Zibis <Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de
>> <mailto:Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de>> wrote:
>> again, can you please be more specific, which examples are
>> confusing for you,
>> and in which way?
>> Am 20.05.2009 00:44, Joe Darcy schrieb:
>> > I'm also a bit confused over what exactly is being proposed.
More information about the coin-dev