On Tue, 25 May 2021 16:14:56 GMT, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> I'd like to note this is a preview feature - we can change the desugaring. At
> the same time, I don't think this does not work with sub-patterns (those can
> be easily desugared to guards, I think).
Yes, but in that case the classcheck du
On Tue, 25 May 2021 16:00:43 GMT, Rémi Forax wrote:
> > The reason for this integer (which is not a constant in the case of this
> > switch) is to restart the matching in case guards fail to "match".
> > Considering the example here:
> > ```
> > class Example {
> > void example(Object
On Tue, 25 May 2021 14:22:57 GMT, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> The reason for this integer (which is not a constant in the case of this
> switch) is to restart the matching in case guards fail to "match".
> Considering the example here:
>
> ```
> class Example {
> void example(Object o) {
>
On Tue, 25 May 2021 14:13:55 GMT, Rémi Forax wrote:
> 7: iconst_0 < this zero
@forax as far as I understood this will be a value of
parameter `startIndex` in `java.lang.runtime. SwitchBootstraps.doSwitch`
Please correct me @lahodaj if I'm wrong.
-
PR:
On Tue, 25 May 2021 14:13:55 GMT, Rémi Forax wrote:
> > Thanks Evgeny, I'll take a look.
> > @forax, do you mean why there is "0" in:
> > 11: invokedynamic #13, 0
> > ?
>
> Not this one, the one on the stack.
>
> 7: iconst_0 < this zero
> 8: istore_3
> 9: aload_2
> 10: iload_3
> 11:
On Tue, 25 May 2021 12:20:02 GMT, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> Thanks Evgeny, I'll take a look.
>
> @forax, do you mean why there is "0" in:
> 11: invokedynamic #13, 0
> ?
Not this one, the one on the stack.
7: iconst_0 < this zero
8: istore_3
9: aload_2
10: iload_3
11: invokedynamic #13, 0 //
On Wed, 19 May 2021 08:00:12 GMT, Jan Lahoda wrote:
>> This is a preview of a patch implementing JEP 406: Pattern Matching for
>> switch (Preview):
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213076
>>
>> The current draft of the specification is here:
>>
- Mail original -
> De: "Evgeny Mandrikov"
> À: "build-dev" , "compiler-dev"
> , "core-libs-dev"
> , "javadoc-dev"
> Envoyé: Mardi 25 Mai 2021 11:32:03
> Objet: Re: RFR: 8262891: Compiler implementation for Pattern M
On Mon, 17 May 2021 19:01:01 GMT, Jan Lahoda wrote:
>> Good work. There's a lot to take in here. I think overall, it holds up well
>> - I like how case labels have been extended to accommodate for patterns. In
>> the front-end, I think there are some questions over the split between Attr
>>
> This is a preview of a patch implementing JEP 406: Pattern Matching for
> switch (Preview):
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213076
>
> The current draft of the specification is here:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep406/jep406-20210430/specs/patterns-switch-jls.html
>
> A
10 matches
Mail list logo
