The fact that the semantics of ?: is very ad-hoc is a kind of accident of the
history,
we may want to fix it but i do not see why we have to fix it at the same time
that we introduce the expression switch,
we can fix the semantics of ?: later or never.
Rémi
----- Mail original -----
> De: "daniel smith" <daniel.sm...@oracle.com>
> À: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr>
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net>
> Envoyé: Samedi 31 Mars 2018 03:44:49
> Objet: Re: Feedback wanted: switch expression typing
>> On Mar 30, 2018, at 10:54 AM, Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
>>
>> I do not see (B) as sacrifying the consistency because the premise is that an
>> expression switch should be consistent with ?:
>>
>> But an expression switch can also be modeled as a classical switch that
>> returns
>> it's value to a local variable.
>>
>> int a = switch(foo) {
>> case 'a' -> 2;
>> case 'b' -> 3;
>> }
>> can be see as
>> int a = $switch(foo);
>> with
>> int $switch(char foo) {
>> case 'a': return 2;
>> case 'b': return 3;
>> }
>
> I mean, sure, this is another way to assert "switches in assignment contexts
> should always be poly expressions".
>
> But it's just as easy to assert "conditional expressions in assignment
> contexts
> should always be poly expressions".
>
> int a = test ? 2 : 3;
> can be seen as
> int a = $conditional(test);
> with
> int $conditional(boolean test) {
> if (test) return 2;
> else return 3;
> }
>
> Those are probably good principles. But if we embrace them, we're doing (C).
>
> —Dan
