<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<font size="4" face="monospace">There's another piece of the answer
here as well, which is the existing boundaries for type-checking
checked exceptions. And that existing boundary is solely method
boundaries. (Lambdas are methods.)<br>
<br>
A method can be declared to throw a set of checked exceptions; the
only place we check for "you can't throw X here" is at the top
level of a method. (What exceptions might be thrown from the top
level may bubble up from more deeply nested blocks within a
top-level statement, through flow analysis.) <br>
<br>
The current proposal does not propose to change that; we are not
making switches a boundary where we do method-style exception
checking (we'd have to put a `throws` clause on a switch if we
did.) <br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/1/2024 2:37 AM, David Alayachew
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAA9v-_MhtkDfngie=45wjk4yLKm=ZfwQxv53secYv0Rqob=7HA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Hello,</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Thank
you for your response!</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Yes,
this makes a lot of sense, and I figured it would be the case.
But the article (surprisingly) didn't address that point at
all. Likely because just broaching the topic of exceptions in
switch was a task on its own, and this subject will come
later.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">I also
appreciate the set theory formula at the end. You also posted
that in the other thread, and I still plan to respond to that
once I get the chance.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Thank
you for your time and help!</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">David
Alayachew<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jan 1, 2024 at 2:27 AM
Holo The Sage Wolf <<a href="mailto:holo3146@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">holo3146@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">Checked exceptions will remain totally
checked.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Given a function f, let checkF be the set of
checked exceptions, then the expression:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">switch(root(args)) {</div>
<div dir="auto"> case branch0 -> do0(args);</div>
<div dir="auto"> case branch1 -> do1(args);</div>
<div dir="auto"> ...</div>
<div dir="auto"> case branch1 -> doN(args);</div>
<div dir="auto"> case throws fBranch0 ->
handle0(args);</div>
<div dir="auto"> case throws fBranch0 ->
handle1(args);</div>
<div dir="auto"> ...</div>
<div dir="auto"> case throws fBranch0 ->
handleM(args);</div>
<div dir="auto">}</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Will have the following set of checked
exceptions:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"> (checkRoot - {fBranch0, ... fBranchM}) +
checkDo0 + ... + checkDoN + checkHandle0 + ... +
checkHandleM</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Where minus is set difference and plus is
union</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 1 Jan 2024, 09:12
David Alayachew, <<a href="mailto:davidalayachew@gmail.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">davidalayachew@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Hello
Amber Dev Team,</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">I
read Brian Goetz's "Case Effect on Switch" (looks like
it recently got renamed to "Uniform handling of
failure in switch"), and I have a quick question.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">I
think it's cool to bring error handling into switch,
but will we still get the exhaustiveness/totality on
checked exceptions that we are used to on the try
catch side?</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">I
feel like it would be weird and unintuitive if it
didn't, since switch expressions already give us
exhaustiveness/totality, and that's basically the
biggest reason to use a switch expression in the first
place. Leaving it out for exceptions would just feel
mean. Plus, having this feature would really help with
clarifying intent and with readability.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Thank
you for your time and help!</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">David
Alayachew<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>