On Apr 27, 2021, at 9:39 AM, Brian Goetz <brian.go...@oracle.com<mailto:brian.go...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Where I think we need to shore up the story is in "how do I turn on exhaustiveness checking for statement switches.” Yes, the non-exhaustiveness of legacy switches turns out to be a hiding place for bugs and misconceptions. I do like your proposal (in the other thread) of turning on non-exhaustiveness by default for as many switches as possible. It would seem to help users think about their code more clearly. And putting “default: break” at the bottom seems as reasonable ask: Basically, it annotates that switch as non-exhaustive, making the code easier to reason about. In fact, *all* switches become easier to reason about, since the last case is always the fallback. All that said, I hope we don’t run into cases where somebody has written a switch that really looks good w/o a default, and will look worse with one. Surely someone will bring such a breed of switch, eventually, to the Big Pet Show. — John
