JEP325: Switch expressions spec

[Kevin Bourrillion]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Guy Steele <guy.steele at oracle.com> wrote:

(1) We have moved toward allowing “arrow versus colon” to be a syntax
> choice that is COMPLETELY orthogonal to other choices about the use of
> `switch`.  If this rule is to hold universally, then any switch statement
> or expression should be convertible between the arrow form and the colon
> form using a simple, uniform rule.
>
> (2) In switch expressions we want to be able to use the concise notation
> `case a, b, c -> s;` for a switch clause.
>
> (3) From (1) and (2) we inexorably conclude that `case a, b, c: break s;`
> must also be a valid syntax.
>
> (4) But we could also have written (3) as `case a: case b: case c: break
> s;` and we certainly expect them to have equivalent behavior.
>
> (5) From (1) and (4) we conclude that we ought also be to be able to write
> `case a -> case b -> case c -> s;`.
>

Not necessarily, if one simply views (4) as being an artifact of colonform
switch's capacity for fall-through, which we know should not carry over.
(Although we technically don't use the term "fall-through" in this
no-intervening-code case, it works the same way and many people do think of
it that way.)

-- 
Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kevinb at google.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/attachments/20180423/6617d957/attachment.html>