> On 23 Mar 2018, at 20:51, Guy Steele <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> String s = switch (e) {
> case 0 -> break “foofoo”;
> case 1:
> if (p == 0) break x;
> else { String z = hairy(x); break z+z; }
> case 2 -> “barbar”;
> };
>
> Now I decide that case 1 has three subcases. So I change the `if` to a
> statement `switch`.
>
> String s = switch (e) {
> case 0 -> break “foofoo”;
> case 1:
> switch (p) {
> case 0: break x;
> case 1: break x+x;
> default: String z = hairy(x); break z+z;
> }
> case 2 -> “barbar”;
> };
>
> FAIL.
The inner switch is actually an expression switch, so you just need an extra
break:
String s = switch (e) {
case 0 -> “foofoo”;
case 1:
break switch (p) {
case 0: break x;
case 1: break x+x;
default: String z = hairy(x); break z+z;
};
case 2 -> “barbar”;
};
> All I’m doing is demonstrating that a common refactoring pattern “turn the
> `if` statement into a `switch` statement” has more pitfalls than it used to
> once we introduce `switch` expressions.
Agreed.
Gavin
