On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Kevin Bourrillion <kev...@google.com> wrote:
The more I have thought about it, the more I believe that 95% of the entire > value of expression switch is that it *isn't procedural switch*, and is > easier to reason about than procedural switch because of all things it *can't > *do: > > - can't miss cases > - can't return > - can't break/continue a containing construct > - can't fall through > - (for constants or other disjoint patterns) can't depend on the order > of cases. > > As far as I can tell, its limitations are exactly what make it useful. > Brian reminded me in the other thread that as long as we voluntarily stick to `->` style for all cases, we get all of this. So, from my perspective, if we just adopt a style rule for Google Style that when using switch in an expression context one should stick to `->`, I might have basically what I want. -- Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kev...@google.com
