On 5/27/19 11:24 AM, Brian Goetz wrote: > This is really two questions. We could have a non-ambiguous keyword (eg > break-from-expression-switch); that’s separate from the keyword vs operator > story. > > To the latter, I think the simple answer is: all existing control flow > operations (return, throw, break, etc) are words. This does not seem > sufficiently different to change paradigms by creating an operator.
Well, there's the main control flow operator ";", plus "?...:" and "->". > > To the former, this is a trade off between spec complexity and reading > clarity. To this, the question of whether this is a good trade off is a > reasonable one. If the complexity can be reasonably bounded, I think most > people prefer a new verb to the set of things that can be constructed with > real unambiguous keywords, but this is surely subjective. > (At the risk of concurrent programmers subjectively factionalizing into an Anyone But Yield movement for value-producing blocks to avoid misreading code.) Anyway, the main point of writing was a CSR-member-style plea for empirical checks of impact as a part of due diligence. -Doug > Sent from my MacBook Wheel > >> On May 27, 2019, at 4:06 PM, Doug Lea <d...@cs.oswego.edu> wrote: >> >> >> I don't enjoy being the token curmudgeon here, but I find it >> increasingly hard to appreciate why a non-ambiguous choice (prefix "^") >> with precedence in related languages should be rejected in favor of one >> requiring context-sensitive grammar mangling with some known odd >> consequences. At the very least, could someone help check as-yet-unknown >> impact by using candidate parsers on large source corpuses (for example >> http://groups.inf.ed.ac.uk/cup/javaGithub/, google-internal, etc)? >> >> -Doug >> >> > >
