Expression switch - an alternate proposal

[Brian Goetz]

> Perhaps you shouldn't allow statements in a switch expression? They aren't allowed in a ? : expression either.

Are you kidding?  We’d get lynched.  If you want to put one logging statement in one case of a 50 case switch, or construct a list and add to it, or have to call a setter on the thing you’re returning, or do something in a loop to build the result, you have to refactor the whole thing to a statement switch?  We’d get laughed out of the room.  

Statements are a pain; no doubt.  But we can’t hide our heads in the sand and pretend they don’t exist.  We have to engage them as consistently and constructively as we can.  

> I also don't understand Rémy's remark that a traditional break inside a switch expression is disallowed. What rules out
> 
>        case BAKED_POTATO:
>              Toppings t = new Toppings();
>              t.add(SOUR_CREAM);
>              t.add(CHEESE);
>              int count = 0;
>              while (true) {
>                 if (count == 10) break; else count++;
>                 t.add(BACON);
>              }
>              break t;

You can’t say “break” without a value in an expression switch, just like you can’t say “return” without a value in a value-bearing method.

> Is there a restriction on what can go into the semicolon-separated list of statements in the case label of an expression switch? I couldn't see one in the JEP. And if not, what happens if there is a return? A break without value? A continue?

Return, continue, break without value, and break with label are forbidden (not unlike lambdas.)  Of course, you can have a statement switch inside of it, and you can break out of that — but not _through_ an expression switch (not unlike lambdas.)  

> It seems that, if variable declarations are allowed in an expression switch, the rules are going to have to be different :-)

The rules are the same.  Same old switch.  That’s the point.