I'm actually OK with the more concise and obscure notation, but I think
we need to note carefully where writability readability trades off against
readability, so we can tilt the language toward readability.
On Jan 8, 2019, at 4:07 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
>
> While the aim is perhaps noble, make
On Jan 8, 2019, at 5:15 PM, John Rose wrote:
>
> I'm actually OK with the more concise and obscure notation, but I think
> we need to note carefully where writability readability trades off against
> readability, so we can tilt the language toward readability.
Paste error! Delete the first of
> De: "John Rose"
> À: "Tagir Valeev"
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
> Envoyé: Mardi 8 Janvier 2019 23:55:19
> Objet: Re: Flow scoping
> On Jan 4, 2019, at 6:07 AM, Tagir Valeev < [ mailto:amae...@gmail.com |
> amae...@gmail.com ] > wrote:
>> For the record: I heavily support this. If then-branch
On Jan 8, 2019, at 3:14 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>
> Essentially, you're saying that if someone declares a pattern variable that
> would shadow a DU (final, please!) local, then the variables are merged and
> the scope is pinned at the scope of the local. That's nice in that the scope
> and
Essentially, you're saying that if someone declares a pattern variable
that would shadow a DU (final, please!) local, then the variables are
merged and the scope is pinned at the scope of the local. That's nice
in that the scope and declaration point are now clearer, but on the
other hand the
On Jan 4, 2019, at 6:07 AM, Tagir Valeev wrote:
>
> For the record: I heavily support this. If then-branch cannot complete
> normally, then unwrapping the else-branch should preserve the program
> semantics. It works today, and it should work in future Java as well.
I agree also. But it is
Or, if not additive, but we end up reusing the `final` keyword in the
way shown at the bottom of this email, then we could at least allow
`permits //, TypeA, TypeB` which is maybe nearly as good.
In light of this morning's observation about hyphenated keywords ...
there's a lot in this
Actually, even better than `break-with` would be `break-return`. It’s clearly
a kind of `break`, and also clearly a kind of `return`.
I think maybe this application alone has won me over to the idea of hyphenated
keywords.
(Then again, for this specific application we don’t even need the
This document proposes a possible move that will buy us some breathing
room in the perpetual problem where the keyword-management tail wags the
programming-model dog.
## We need more keywords, captain!
Java has a fixed set of _keywords_ (JLS 3.9) which are not allowed to
be used as
