----- Mail original -----
> De: "Brian Goetz" <[email protected]>
> À: "Remi Forax" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <[email protected]>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 8 Décembre 2017 15:48:36
> Objet: Re: New JEP: Switch Expressions for the Java Language
> Clearly accessing locals should be allowed, to some degree -- it would
> be weird if we could not reference y here. But it is reasonable to ask,
> what restrictions do we want to place?
yes,
> Are the same restrictions as lambdas -- effectively-final only -- too
> restrictive?
I believe it's ok to have the same restrictions as lambdas.
We still have the classical switch as backup and given that the current
proposed syntax uses '->', it will be weird if expression/body after the -> has
another set of rules as the lambda ones.
> (Certainly such a restriction opens up more options for translation
> strategies, and is
> consistent with other -> contexts.)
yes, if the expression switch as the same restrictions as a lambda
expression/body, it means we can represent each expression as a static method
like with the lambda translation instead of having one blob of code for all
expressions, so we can re-organise them, not even make one of them present if
the case is never called, etc.
Rémi
>
> On 12/7/2017 6:02 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
>> Hi Brian,
>> correct me of i'm wrong but there is no discussion about accessing to a local
>> variable in the body of an expression,
>>
>> void m(int x, int y) {
>> return switch(x) {
>> case 0 -> y; // is it allowed, how is it translated ?
>> default -> 0;
>> };
>> }
>>
>> regards,
>> Rémi
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Brian Goetz" <[email protected]>
>>> À: "amber-spec-experts" <[email protected]>
>>> Envoyé: Jeudi 7 Décembre 2017 23:33:36
>>> Objet: New JEP: Switch Expressions for the Java Language
>>> We've separated out a package of standalone improvements to `switch`
>>> (switch expressions, case null, and case alternation) into their own JEP:
>>>
> >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8192963
