<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;
panose-1:2 11 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Iosevka Fixed SS16";
panose-1:2 0 5 9 3 0 0 0 0 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Iosevka Fixed SS16";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Iosevka Fixed SS16"">I don't want to limit the API choices: someone might come around and say "we want to add two more directions - clockwise and counterclockwise". The any code that switches
on an enum value without a default case would fail at run time (a known footgun).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Iosevka Fixed SS16""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Iosevka Fixed SS16"">I don't understand why anyone want to switch on method references or "modify control flow" where these APIs are clearly transmit-only so to speak. I just see no use case.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Iosevka Fixed SS16""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Iosevka Fixed SS16"">-andy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Iosevka Fixed SS16""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Iosevka Fixed SS16""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">openjfx-dev <openjfx-dev-retn@openjdk.org> on behalf of Michael Strauß <michaelstrau2@gmail.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, October 21, 2024 at 14:47<br>
<b>To: </b><br>
<b>Cc: </b>openjfx-dev@openjdk.org <openjfx-dev@openjdk.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: Proposal: Focus Traversal API<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> Also, there seems to be little utility in creating the directionality enum - the only reason to do so would, in my opinion, be within the context of a traversal policy, something that appeared to be very
controversial. I can't but notice how the example you gave tries to solve the same problem the traversal policy would solve.<br>
<br>
My example doesn't solve anything, it merely shows that encoding a<br>
method parameter in six different versions of the same method doesn't<br>
compose well, and has worse ergonomics than just encoding the<br>
parameter as an actual parameter.<br>
<br>
The reasons I gave are:<br>
1. You can't switch() on a method reference, therefore applications<br>
that want to use the new API and abstract over it will have to<br>
re-invent the enum anyways.<br>
2. You can't modify the control flow by selecting a different parameter.<br>
<br>
I don't want to discuss the traversal policy proposal here, I am only<br>
commenting on the API that you propose. There is no precedent in<br>
JavaFX for providing six different methods for what is essentially a<br>
parameter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>