eed.
*From:* amber-spec-experts on
behalf of Maurizio Cimadamore
*Sent:* 27 October 2023 16:37
*To:* Brian Goetz ;
amber-spec-experts@openjdk.org
*Subject:* Re: Fw: JEP 455: Non-enhanced switch statements
No disagreement here. But
not be altered
indeed.
From: amber-spec-experts on behalf of
Maurizio Cimadamore
Sent: 27 October 2023 16:37
To: Brian Goetz ; amber-spec-experts@openjdk.org
Subject: Re: Fw: JEP 455: Non-enhanced switch statements
No disagreement here. But I'd still poin
No disagreement here. But I'd still point out that I'd rather see
exhaustiveness being associated with the type being switched on, rather
than on whether the switch body happens to use certain features or not.
For sealed types we're lucky, because switching on them wasn't possible
before - so
Sure - but this logic is only applied to switch expression featuring
enums AFAIK - switch statements with enums are non-exhaustive (and I
think that will have to stay that way).
Slight correction: switch statements on enum selectors *that don't use
patterns or guards or case null* are non-e
Sure - but this logic is only applied to switch expression featuring
enums AFAIK - switch statements with enums are non-exhaustive (and I
think that will have to stay that way).
Maurizio
On 27/10/2023 15:28, Brian Goetz wrote:
Unfortunately enum is that one case where compatibility dictate
Unfortunately enum is that one case where compatibility dictates that
we can't be exhaustive, which is a little sad... but I think that's
the best we can do?
What we do for enums is do exhaustiveness checking based on the
compile-time state of the world, and generate a synthetic default
iformity in what the user will assume, thus I will fix the bug.
What do others think?
*From:* Yuriy Maslyanko
*Sent:* 24 October 2023 21:57
*To:* Angelos Bimpoudis
*Cc:* compiler-...@openjdk.org
*Subject:* JEP 455: Non-enhanc
m: *"Angelos Bimpoudis"
*To: *"amber-spec-experts"
*Cc: *"Yuriy Maslyanko"
*Sent: *Wednesday, October 25, 2023 12:49:18 AM
*Subject: *Fw: JEP 455: Non-enhanced switch statements
Hello all!
Hello Angelos,
Yuriy pointed out a valid point.
1) Shou
> From: "Angelos Bimpoudis"
> To: "amber-spec-experts"
> Cc: "Yuriy Maslyanko"
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 12:49:18 AM
> Subject: Fw: JEP 455: Non-enhanced switch statements
> Hello all!
Hello Angelos,
> Yuriy pointed out a vali
favour of the 2) for the shake of symmetry and uniformity in
what the user will assume, thus I will fix the bug.
What do others think?
From: Yuriy Maslyanko
Sent: 24 October 2023 21:57
To: Angelos Bimpoudis
Cc: compiler-...@openjdk.org
Subject: JEP 455: Non
10 matches
Mail list logo
