----- Mail original ----- > De: "Guy Steele" <guy.ste...@oracle.com> > À: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> > Cc: "mark" <m...@io7m.com>, "amber-spec-experts" > <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Jeudi 15 Mars 2018 20:36:13 > Objet: Re: break seen as a C archaism
>> On Mar 15, 2018, at 3:48 PM, Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >>> De: "mark" <m...@io7m.com> >>> À: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> >>> Envoyé: Jeudi 15 Mars 2018 20:06:40 >>> Objet: Re: break seen as a C archaism >> >>> On 2018-03-15T14:50:45 -0400 >>> Brian Goetz <brian.go...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> If you are reconsidering options, reconsider "yield", meaning >>>>> "break current context with this value". >>>> >>>> Still feeling a little burned by first time we floated this, but willing >>>> to try another run up the flagpole.... >>> >>> Silly idea, but... *puts on fireproof suit*: >>> >>> "finally x;" >> >> I believe we can also use any new keywords given that you can not have an >> identifier followed by an identifier in Java. >> >> by example >> pass x; >> quit x; >> end x; > > Remember that in this situation (switch expressions), `x` can be any > expression, > not just an identifier. > > So “pass x;” cannot be confused with existing syntax, but “pass (x)” can be > (looks like a method call). > > —Guy yes, thanks. Rémi
