On Sat, Sep 12, 2026 at 2:03 AM Michael Park <mcypark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The problem with switch is that the syntax for switch is not structured at all.
> The syntax for switch is essentially:
>
> switch (value) statement
>
> The statement there makes it such that any arbitrary sequence of statements can
> be written with cases written somewhere sometimes.
>
> It also has too much baggage around fall-through and requiring break, etc.
I agree with this point. I'd prefer the value in a new feature to
"look" more like a lambda body anyway, complete with a return
statement (or instead of a full lambda body, just a single expression
that gives the value). I may have more detailed ideas later.
I feel like this example might be pretty close to what you're saying?
#include <variant>
struct MyClass { int num; };
int f(std::variant<MyClass, int> x) {
int result = match (x) {
case { MyClass myclass } => myclass.num;
case { int n } => n;
};
}
The match expression here produces an int with the expression on the rhs of =>.
>
> The committee has been pretty firm on "leave switch alone".
Interesting! I'm not surprised, but I wouldn't mind making little
improvements to this statement over adding a new language feature.