Extend switch .. case statement for Object types and simple expressions

[Ulf Zibis]

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.

>
> -Joe
>
> Neal Gafter wrote:
>> Ulf-
>>
>> 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 
confusing.

-Ulf


>>
>> Regards,
>> Neal
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>