> On Jul 11, 2016, at 3:49 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > As for all of the other additive changes, I would strongly prefer you to > *wait* on even proposing or discussing these things until after the Swift 3.0 > evolution cycle is done. Not only is it distracting for the community, but > the core team and many others won’t be be able to even read the thread or the > responses, thus your discussion cycle will be lacking key input. > > On this topic, we specifically discussed this when labeled breaks were being > designed, and when they were expanded to “do” in Swift 2. We specifically > decided to allow break but not continue, because we didn’t want these control > flow statements to be “another way to spell a loop”.
Right. If you're interested in pursuing something like this, you might pitch a proposal that adds a "reswitch" that takes an operand to re-dispatch on; but like Chris says, you should wait until the Swift 4 cycle starts. John. > > -Chris > >> On Jul 10, 2016, at 7:27 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> A quick pitch to introduce `continue` to switch statements. This would be >> additive and could not be considered for Swift 3. >> >> -- E >> >> Pitch: Introduce continue to Switch Statements >> >> >> <https://gist.github.com/erica/04835de3d3d9121ef7308dd9b093158a#introduction>Introduction >> >> This pitch completes the switch statement's control flow transfer suite by >> introducing continue. Doing so provides functionality that a large portion >> of newer developers expect from (but do not get from) fallthrough. >> > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
