Tobias Brandt

I'm in favour of keeping the current `switch` using conditions because conditions can reference different variables/columns as you fall through the ladder which can be useful (and is allowed by...

Would it be possible to extend the match syntax so that it's not just for the `in` function but any function? ```elm match x [ in range1 -> val1 func2...

Actually, given that we don't have late binding for functions, I guess my lambda acrobatics above wouldn't work for the common case of ```elm match col1 [ _ > col2...

Cool. The `_` lambda syntax is inspired / taken from this [fn.py](https://github.com/kachayev/fn.py) python package. I've used it before and find it a pretty convenient way to write lambdas. --- I...

The previous examples don't really showcase the benefits of the functional approach since they are mostly all just range matches which can be done easily with standard comparison operators. However...

I agree with the proposal to leave `match` for 0.5 or later and rather get 0.4 out with `switch` because that's a big win and enables a whole lot of...

Looking at the example from here https://github.com/PRQL/prql/issues/1564#issuecomment-1387556359 ```elm # from playground from tracks select [ category = switch [ length > avg_length -> 'long' ] ] group [category] ( aggregate...

Those are good questions @max-sixty and I agree that as a general rule we should have as little different syntax as possible. I expressed my sentiment/vote, probably largely on feeling...

I'm still +1 on having different arrows (what's our scale again? In my mind it's -2..2, not -1..1). --- > Assuming we go with both -> and => what would...

> Second reason were personal aesthetics, which are pointless to discuss. I think personal aesthetics are important and are ok to discuss. Where the danger lies, and why often it's...