> De: "Brian Goetz" <brian.go...@oracle.com> > À: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> > Cc: "Kevin Bourrillion" <kev...@google.com>, "amber-spec-experts" > <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Mercredi 2 Mai 2018 14:14:33 > Objet: Re: `case null:` (here we go)
> I think this is a little too strong. default is associated with switch, and we > probably do need to massage switch’s handling of default, but we don’t need to > make it a full blown pattern. And we probably don’t want to; saying > case Foo(default): … > or > if (x instanceof Bar(default)) > doesn’t make much sense. default can be a primary pattern without being a secondary pattern, i.e not available when matching something extracted, in term of grammar those can be separated. > So I agree it should be rehabilitated, but not by quite that much. >> Now that we have decided that the -> syntax doesn't allow fallthrough, i >> think >> we have no choice but to allow, default has a possible 'Pattern' in the >> grammar. Rémi
