Expression switch exception naming

[forax at univ-mlv.fr]

My point was more that if you want an exception and not an error,
you can add a default than discussing the merit of implicit vs explicit throwable.

The compiler should emit a code that throw an error for unknown enum constant.

if the compiler emit a code that throw an exception,
people will also be able to catch it, adding another way to react to a missing enum constant. 

regards,
Rémi

----- Mail original -----
> De: "Brian Goetz" <brian.goetz at oracle.com>
> À: "Remi Forax" <forax at univ-mlv.fr>
> Cc: "Gavin Bierman" <gavin.bierman at oracle.com>, "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 28 Mars 2018 20:55:04
> Objet: Re: Expression switch exception naming

>> Using a runtime exception is like another less readable way to do exactly that.
>>
>>
> 
> It's both less and more readable.
> 
> Its less readable in that its implicit in the code, rather than
> explicit.  But its probably the case that the exception thrown
> implicitly will be more informative to the user than the hand-written
> one, which is usually:
> 
>     default: throw new AssertionError("can't get here");
> 
> Which is less readable for the poor fellow who had to debug it.