Hello!
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 5:44 PM Brian Goetz wrote:
>
> So, there are two stable points here: make the where clause part of the
> pattern, or match it with the case label entirely. The middle option is not
> stable; a case like
>
> case P, Q when e:
>
> Is no longer clear
Exactly, i
Or you could just require parentheses when the meaning might not be clear. And
I mean _require_: allow
case P when e:
case P, (Q when e):
case (P, Q) when e:
but NOT
case P, Q when e:
And if you object that
case (P, Q) when e:
should really mean a single tuple pattern (P,
So, there are two stable points here: make the where clause part of the
pattern, or match it with the case label entirely. The middle option is not
stable; a case like
case P, Q when e:
Is no longer clear, and worse, if the when clause binds to Q, then we would
have to repeat the guard i
- Original Message -
> From: "Tagir Valeev"
> To: "Brian Goetz"
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 5:28:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [patterns] Several patterns and guards
> I don't think that my example is contrived. Let's think of it from
> another angle. Are multiple
> And also the formatting does not help, you can compare
Of course, if you know the confusing semantics of the language, you
can format the code to make it less confusing. We can also provide IDE
warnings or autoformatting to help the users to avoid confusion. But
it's always better to make the la
I don't think that my example is contrived. Let's think of it from
another angle. Are multiple patterns in the same switch label useful
or contrived? If not useful, then let's disable them completely. If
useful, then the next question: are guards with multiple patterns
useful or contrived? Can you
- Original Message -
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Tagir Valeev"
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 5:04:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [patterns] Several patterns and guards
> While we could certainly do this, I think the cost-benefit runs in the wrong
> direction here. T
While we could certainly do this, I think the cost-benefit runs in the wrong
direction here. This sort of thing is better expressed as an if, and that’s
fine. (I think you’ll agree that this example is a little bit contrived.).
> On Aug 14, 2023, at 5:15 AM, Tagir Valeev wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
Hello!
I've noticed that javac accepts this code:
enum X {A, B}
void test(Object obj) {
switch (obj) {
case String _, X.B -> System.out.println("B or String");
default -> System.out.println("other");
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Test().test("ddd");
}
At the sa
Hello!
Currently, when the switch label contains several patterns, only one
guard could be declared, which is applied to all the patterns at once.
In other words, the following code is not possible:
void test(Object obj) {
switch (obj) {
case Integer _ when ((Integer) obj) > 0,
Str
10 matches
Mail list logo
