We've been reviewing the work to date on switch expressions. Here's
where we are, and here's a possible place we might move to, which I like
a lot better than where we are now.
## Goals
As a reminder, remember that the primary goal here is _not_ switch
expressions; switch expressions are supp
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 4:44 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>
> We've been reviewing the work to date on switch expressions. Here's where we
> are, and here's a possible place we might move to, which I like a lot better
> than where we are now.
> . . .
> ## Closing the gap
>
> So, let's take one more s
I was starting to get fatalistically pessimistic about switch,
but the all-colon-as-statement vs all-arrow-as-expression
idea (with nothing in-between) seems pretty good!
And would be even better if JLS impact were carefully checked.
-Doug
On 04/19/2018 04:44 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
> We've been
I like Un{recognized,known}EnumConstantE{rror,xception}. When we get to
sealed types, it will be the same but with something like
s/EnumConstant/SealedTypeMember/.
I am still having trouble squaring the Error vs Exception, but you've
pulled me from "seems like an Exception to me" into "crap,
On Apr 19, 2018, at 1:44 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>
> The result is one switch construct, with modern and legacy flavors, which
> supports either expressions or statements.
+10
Incrementally improving existing constructs is better, in this case (and
usually) than piecemeal adding new-but-similar
Can a single-statement case have a variable declaration as that
statement, and what would be its scope?
No, a local variable declaration is a BlockStatement (JLS 14.2), not a
Statement (JLS 14.5). So you could say:
case FOO -> println(3);
or
case FOO -> {
int x = 4;
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 6:19 PM, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
> . . .
> Can a single-statement case have a variable declaration as that statement,
> and what would be its scope?
My guess would be “yes”, and all the same things would happen as for a local
variable declaration statement that happens t
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 6:27 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Can a single-statement case have a variable declaration as that statement,
>> and what would be its scope?
>
> No, a local variable declaration is a BlockStatement (JLS 14.2), not a
> Statement (JLS 14.5). So you could say:
>
>
> I think I do finally understand, thanks to your example, what is different
> between this and the previous kinds of incompatible changes. The JDK (and
> some libraries) makes strong promises not to break compatibility. Yet we
> simply can't throw up our hands and refuse to add constants to enu
