JEP proposed to target JDK 12: 325: Switch Expressions (Preview)

[John Rose]

To those of us in the loop on the switch/snitch design, a very long loop, this decision process does not seem heavy handed at all. 

The detailed discussion happens elsewhere than jdk-dev and anybody can subscribe or browse amber-dev to see, if not all of it (which would be impossible unless cameras followed all of us around), at least all relevant checkpoints and public comments and discussion.  It is necessary to division of labor for stuff to happen in tidy corners like amber-dev. 

Meanwhile this list jdk-dev summarizes that work and formalizes decisions. Formality on one channel doesn’t imply abruptness if discussion has competed in another channel. And we wouldn’t expect to micro-manage or re-discuss or re-litigate lower level decisions on this list unless the lower level list were unusually dysfunctional – which it isn’t, in my opinion.

HTH
— John


On Aug 28, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Roman Kennke <roman at kennke.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> an answer satisfactory if those who raised it agree and state here that
>> they're ok. In particular, I don't actually see any need to include a
>> half-baked (language-) feature as preview.
> 
> I did not want to come across harsh and devalue the many hours of work
> that went into the project by the various contributors. Please accept my
> apology. My criticism was in no way intended to target the amber project
> or the JEP 325 in question here.
> 
> From my outside perspective it just seemed to me that a few people
> raised objections to targeting the JEP to JDK 12, those objections have
> not (in my perception) been adequately addressed, and then the JEP has
> simply been accepted to target JDK 12. It did seem bit heavy-handed to
> me. Brian's and Mark's comments did help to understand the situation
> better. Thanks!
> 
> Roman
> 
> 
> 
>