Funnily enough, this exact syntax was considered when pattern matching was first discussed.  There was a very lengthy discussion about whether to use switch or whether to use a new keyword (like inspect), and one of the ways that was suggested in the switch case was to use square brackets instead of parens to differentiate a pattern switch from a normal switch.  The support for it was even considerable, but I think the inspect folks won out in the end.

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 12:38 PM Barry Revzin via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:


On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 2:09 PM Михаил Найденов via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
Hello, 
Here is a short proposal to re-use `switch` for Pattern Matching. 

Just so I'm clear. The argument is that introducing a new facility, with new semantics, under a new token (whether inspect or match) would be bad for teachability.

So instead, you're proposing that we reuse an existing token (switch) to introduce two very different behaviors (statement vs expression, best match vs first match, fallthrough vs exactly one arm, integers vs more complex patterns, etc.), but since those different behaviors still need to be differentiated by the parser, you're proposing we do so by simply switching from parentheses to square brackets around the operand? And you're proposing that having 'switch' mean two very different things is better for teachability?

Doesn't seem like a great idea to me. 

Barry
--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals