Update of reasoning why there is no case statement

[amaajemyfren]

BPO	40434
Nosy	@nanjekyejoannah, @amaajemyfren
PRs	bpo-40434: Update the reason why CPython doesn't have switch statements #19787

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = None
created_at = <Date 2020-04-29.08:27:47.560>
labels = ['3.8', 'type-feature', '3.7', '3.9', 'docs']
title = 'Update of reasoning why there is no case statement'
updated_at = <Date 2020-05-01.17:23:06.579>
user = 'https://github.com/amaajemyfren'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2020-05-01.17:23:06.579>
actor = 'nanjekyejoannah'
assignee = 'docs@python'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Documentation']
creation = <Date 2020-04-29.08:27:47.560>
creator = 'amaajemyfren'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 40434
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 4.0
messages = ['367633', '367710', '367838', '367865']
nosy_count = 3.0
nosy_names = ['docs@python', 'nanjekyejoannah', 'amaajemyfren']
pr_nums = ['19787']
priority = 'normal'
resolution = None
stage = 'patch review'
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue40434'
versions = ['Python 3.7', 'Python 3.8', 'Python 3.9']

[amaajemyfren]

The design and history FAQ (https://docs.python.org/dev/faq/design.html#why-isn-t-there-a-switch-or-case-statement-in-python) explains why there is no case statement referencing PEP-275(https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0275/).

For Python 3 there is, however, PEP-3103(https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3103/) which rejected the proposal for a switch statement.

[nanjekyejoannah]

What is your reasoning on referencing just one of the PEPs and not both of them?

[amaajemyfren]

the statement initially said that there was _no consensus yet on how to do range tests_. This is not true because there is now a decision to not do range tests - that decision is only in PEP-3103 and not in PEP-275 (PEP-275 actually links to PEP-3103 to explain why it is rejected). My feeling is that putting two references complicates the goal of explaining it.

[nanjekyejoannah]

PEP-275 actually links to PEP-3103 to explain why it is rejected

Well, am not very convinced if consensus was reached on range tests so I will refrain for someone else's opinion as it is not as apparent to me yet.

[iritkatriel]

out of date (see discussion on PR).