On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 13:23:57 GMT, Jan Lahoda <jlah...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Currently, an enum switch with patterns is desugared in a very non-standard, 
>> and potentially slow, way. It would be better to use the standard 
>> `typeSwitch` bootstrap to classify the enum constants. The bootstrap needs 
>> to accept enum constants as labels in order to allow this. A complication is 
>> that if an enum constant is missing, that is not an incompatible change for 
>> the switch, and the switch should simply work as if the case for the missing 
>> constant didn't exist. So, the proposed solution is to have a new bootstrap 
>> `enumConstant` that converts the enum constant name to the enum constant, 
>> returning `null`, if the constant does not exist. It delegates to 
>> `ConstantBootstraps.enumConstant` to do the actual conversion. And 
>> `typeSwitch` accepts `null`s as padding.
>> 
>> How does this look?
>
> Jan Lahoda has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
> commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Updating javadoc, code and tests as suggested.

src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/runtime/SwitchBootstraps.java line 175:

> 173:      * Bootstrap method for linking an {@code invokedynamic} call site 
> that
> 174:      * implements a {@code switch} on a target of an enum type.  The 
> static
> 175:      * arguments are an array of case labels which must be non-null and 
> of type

This sentence can still be improved and made cleared. Example:

> The static arguments are used to encode the case labels associated to the 
> `switch` construct, where each label can be encoded as a `String` (e.g. to 
> represent an enum constant), or, alternatively, as a `Class` (e.g. to 
> represent a type test pattern whose type is an enum type).

src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/runtime/SwitchBootstraps.java line 179:

> 177:      * <p>
> 178:      * The returned {@code CallSite}'s method handle will have
> 179:      * a return type of {@code int} and accepts two parameters: the 
> first argument

By writing the javadoc text above, it came to mind that, perhaps, some 
validation is in order for the static arguments. For instance:

* the enum type of a Class parameter doesn't match that of the BSM
* the static arguments contain more than one Class parameter (I think even if 
they are all of the same "correct" type, that's bogus, right?)

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk17/pull/81

Reply via email to