[metalrain]

I think match cases should be functions, since you have built those anyway.

So instead of match (x) { expr... } you would have something like match(x, [ fn... ]) or match(x) { name: fn, name2: fn2 } where fn is like (objectToMatch) => { expr }

[codedokode]

It could look like this:

    var x = match (response) {
        case { status:200 }: true;
        case { status: 404 }: false;
        case Number: 0;
        case SomeClass: 1;
        default: -1;
    };

[ThurmaUman]

so make switch first class?

    var x = (switch(true){
        case response === { status: 200 }:
            return true;
        case response === { status: 404 }:
            return false;
        case response === Number:
            return 0;
        case response === SomeClass: 
            return 1;
        default:
            return -1;
    });

[masklinn]

> so make switch first class?

No. That would make the actual switch statement a value, rather than make switches expressions. And your version is completely different as you make cases into guards rather than labels or patterns.

[kbp]

This would introduce a weird inconsistency with cases for match and cases for switch regarding fallthrough, though. If it's going to look like cases in a switch statement, it should act like them, for better or worse.