AutoHotkey Community

I'd like to see two type of flow control in AHK :
a switch case
switch (expression)
{
case x:
bloc_1; break;
case y:
bloc_2; break;

. . . .

case const_n:
bloc_n; break;
default:
bloc_def
}

to make more readable a if ... else if suite of instructions

and a For lopp, to be able to do :

For x = 1, 5, 12, 1245
{
Instructions
}

or

For y = "abc", "zkg", "rstdg"
{
Instructions
}

or

For z = 144 step -12
{
Instructions
}

to be able to make loops on non contiguous values and with the possibility to uise steps...

Instead loop you can try While

For switch case you can do following:

So only internal goto labels will work

_________________
AHK_H (2alpha) AHF TT _Struct WatchDir Yaml _Input ObjTree RapidHotkey DynaRun

Thanks HotKeyIt for your suggestions.
About your suggestion concerning the switch construction, I've seen before asking for this implementation the post [function] switch(case) demo, so I know thera are wrokarounds to have it, but I think that, even if it's just as effective as an internally coded function, it's look like DIY.
Not to say that a DIY solution is a bad one, but I think that an internally coded solution would made the AHK more readable.

For the For instruction, I think that when you speak about the 'While' instruction, you want to say that it ca be substitued to the 'For' one.

Also for readability (but not only), I'm not agree. If I took examples like or , it's to indicate non progressives suites (1, 2, 3, 4, ...).

The example could have been : For x = 1, 1245, -4, 125, 32 to indicate that the suite of values to handle could be not progressive, but must be done in this order (1 in first, 1245 in second, ...).

Of course you can do that with a suite of If ... then If instructions, but I think it's more readable and efficient to be able to do it that way.

This improvements can be seen as cosmetic ones, but I think that the readability of the code is a good way to maintain it more efficiently.

(Sorry for the bad english...)

As far as I understand both requests from you are more or less cosmetic suggestions?

If so I do not think it is going to happen, AHK is more for everyone and not for programmers only, so the less functions/commands the easier to understand and to learn AHK.

If not, and you have a problem to convert an for... into AHK try this:

_________________
AHK_H (2alpha) AHF TT _Struct WatchDir Yaml _Input ObjTree RapidHotkey DynaRun

You could also use Loop, Parse to do the for loop like you requested.

Yes indeed, they are not a necessity to make an AHK script. I know they are workaroud for them. But I think that it is the case of the of the new while ... loop construction, too, that can be replaced by an other ahk type of loop.
But, as the while ... loop, they are usefull to make the code more readable, and so more easily maintainable.
Of course, I don't consider that they must be in the higher place on the priority list, but I think it would be a good thing to have them, if it's possible.
No more nor less.

an autohotkey soultion for switch/case was previously done.

http://www.autohotkey.com/forum/topic7350.html&highlight=switch+pswitch+returnlast

Yes, Switch case, I know that there are workarounds for these instructions (switch ... case and for), and I saw the one you point to.
As for the new while loop, they are not necessary to make a script in AHK (an If ... Then ... Else structure can be used to replace these instructions).
But, again, I think they would be a good thing to make the code more easily readable, so more easy to maintain.
Of course I think it isn't a high priority.

If you want a for loop: for start to end, step, check out [Func] for and forE - emulate a for loop.

_________________
As always, if you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Add OOP to your scripts via the Class Library. Check out my scripts.

One word on fake constructs. Most fake constructs are not making really easier to read. They are slower as usual and the programmer must take care about that construct, where a built-in construct would be checked for correctness by AutoHotkey.

Switch-Case is not common, but may be like while good to have. As most other programming languages have that. The For constructs like in C or Pascal are also often requested.

But look, if every asked constructed would be implemented, then the language would grow too much. This leads to more possible bugs and more to learn and confuse for beginners. Try to explain non programmers the C type of For...