23 Feb
2009
23 Feb
'09
6:12 p.m.
On 20-02 14:25, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Feb 20, 2009 at 14:03, Jan Janak
<jan(a)iptel.org> wrote:
I like the idea of using match for strings and switch for integers, somehow
using match for strings seams more logical to me, but I realize that this is
just a personal preference.
Jan.
On 20-02 12:22, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
This would only make sense if we use match() for strings and switch()
for ints. Otherwise it would be too confusing. On Feb 20, 2009 at 11:15, Daniel-Constantin
Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I would suggest to convert numbers to strings in this case automatically. For
most people things get more confusing with the increasing amount of details
they have to remember about the configuration language. Hello Andrei,
On 02/20/2009 12:50 AM, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
>[...]
>
>script parsing: string switch support
>
that's great, thanks. From the next example, to understand the the case
can take expression that evaluates to static strings or integers?
Yes.
There are the following restriction:
- case labels must be static (no vars allowed)
- in the same switch you can have only one type of case labels: strings
or integers (1)
- the first case label sets the required type for all the others
(so if your first case label is a string => all the other must be
strings, if it's an integer all the other must be integers).
(1) - could be changed in some cases (e.g. string case with some int
label allowed, which could be automatically converted to string), but I
think it would too confusing and I disallowed it (in general having
mixed types in a switch() are 99% an error).