Submission: switch (...) instanceof feature

[Neal Gafter]

2009/5/4 Jeroen van Maanen <jeroen at lexau.org>

> Neal Gafter schreef:
>
>> If we want a variable inside the switch statement with a different type
>> than outside, then the programmer should introduce a new variable.  That
>> allows the new form of the switch statement to be used with general
>> expressions instead of only a simply-named variable.  Something like this:
>>
>
> I disagree. The proposal was meant to deal with the case where a method
> gets an object of an unknown (or not completely known) type and where part
> of the method needs to perform specific actions based on the specific type.
> Currently, this situation needs a cast and a new name. I would like to do
> away with both of them, if possible. So I would like to see a scope where
> the same name is used for the same object but with a narrower type. Is can
> see the problems with getting the "switch" statement to accommodate this, so
> I'm happy very happy with the suggestion that an extension of the "if"
> statement would be more straight forward.


Any proposal that changes the type of an existing variable in a particular
scope is less straightforward, as is any proposal that works with an
expression that is a variable but not any other kind of expression, or that
treats parameters differently from other variables.  Language constructs
that are not designed to be orthogonal are likely not well designed.