Java language and API improvements

[Martijn Verburg]

Hi Alberto,

Further to this, all of these have been proposed in one form or another
previously during Project Coin during Java 7's development.  I suggest you
have a look at the old coin-dev archives (http://mail.openjdk.java.net/
pipermail/coin-dev/) to see why they weren't taken on board (or were
deferred).

Cheers,
Martijn

On 4 December 2015 at 18:28, Jonathan Yu <jawnsy at cpan.org> wrote:

> Hi Alberto,
>
> It might be easier to discuss these proposals by separating them into
> individual emails, to help keep things focussed.  I'm not even sure if this
> is the right list for Java language discussions.
>
> I'm not an expert but just sharing some quick thoughts...
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Alberto Otero Rodríguez <
> alber84ou at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > *3) Switch with blocks*
> >
> >     I think there should be a switch made with blocks in order to permit
> > using variables with the same name and avoid the problems of not putting
> a
> > break. It would be something like:
> >
> >         switch(x)
> >         {
> >             case(1)
> >             {
> >                 int i = 1;
> >                 ...
> >             }
> >             case(2)
> >             {
> >                 int i = 2;
> >                 ...
> >             }
> >             default
> >             {
> >                 ...
> >             }
> >         }
> >
>
> This should already be doable today, e.g.
>
> switch (x) {
>     case 1: {
>         int i = 1;
>         break;
>     }
>     case 2: {
>         int i = 2;
>         break;
>     }
>
> The "break" part is unfortunate but cannot be changed without breaking
> existing code, since code that currently falls through would suddenly start
> behaving differently.
>
>
> > *4) Multiple condition ternary operator*
> >
> >     I think it would be useful to be able to do this:
> >
> >         String str = condition1 \ condition2 ? stringCondition1 :
> > stringCondition2 : stringElse;
> >
> >
> >     Instead of:
> >
> >         String str = null;
> >         if(condition1)
> >         {
> >             str = stringCondition1;
> >         }
> >         else if(condition2)
> >         {
> >             str = stringCondition2;
> >         }.
> >         else
> >         {
> >             str = stringElse;
> >         }
> >
>
> Personally, I find even a single ternary operator to sometimes be a bit
> hard to follow in code, and I think having multiple like this would be
> worse.  It can also make stepping through line-by-line in a debugger more
> difficult (a reason that I like to use lots of intermediate variables),
> even if it results in more lines of code.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jonathan
>