On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:02 PM, sebb wrote:
> Seems to me there are several reasons why the default case may have
> been omitted:
>
> 1) It was accidentally omitted.
> In this case, add the required clause.
>
> 2) It was omitted because nothing needs to be done.
> In this case, this needs to be d
I understand your point about the code having to be descriptive about why
the clause is not present, which is why I suggested using checkstyle, as
it allows for configuration of a comment which skips that check.
However, IMHO your point is valid about having an assertion/error such
that future cha
Seems to me there are several reasons why the default case may have
been omitted:
1) It was accidentally omitted.
In this case, add the required clause.
2) It was omitted because nothing needs to be done.
In this case, this needs to be documented; the easiest way is to add:
default:
break; /
Hi guys,
I am looking at this from a different perspective: the same check can be
performed using checkstyle
(http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/config_coding.html#MissingSwitchDefault)
as well as FindBugs. So if this is a valid case where there is no need
for a default branch, we could perhaps s
> > >
> > > FindBugs can give warnings like:
> > >
> > > Switch statement found in
> > > org.apache.commons.codec.binary.Base32.decode(byte[], int, int,
> > > BaseNCodec$Context) where default case is missing
> > >
> > > In this case for [codec], it looks like the code was carefully
> > constructed
Sorry James,
you misunderstood me. My point was just that Bloch seems to be
consistently using the same exception, namely AssertionError, but that
I'd rather use IllegalStateException.
Of course, in some cases IllegalArgumentException would make sense.
S
2012/9/4 James Carman :
> I wasn't necessar
I wasn't necessarily saying that we should always use
IllegalArgumentException (although it can be applicable if the thing
being switched upon is an argument to the method). The idea was that
we could throw an exception of some sort in our default clause.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Sébastie
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Gilles Sadowski <
gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> >
> > FindBugs can give warnings like:
> >
> > Switch statement found in
> > org.apache.commons.codec.binary.Base32.decode(byte[], int, int,
> > BaseNCodec$Context) where default case is missing
> >
>
Hello,
2012/9/4 James Carman :
> Something like:
>
> throw new IllegalArgumentException("This should never happen because
> we are so smart we thought of every possibility in our case
> statement.");
>
> would suffice :)
>
Not that it really matters, since this is never going to occur, but I
think
Something like:
throw new IllegalArgumentException("This should never happen because
we are so smart we thought of every possibility in our case
statement.");
would suffice :)
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hi Gary,
>
> IMHO FindBugs is supposed to point you at code f
Hi Gary,
IMHO FindBugs is supposed to point you at code fragments that
potentially could cause subtle bugs. If say that the code in codec is
carefully constructed and everything is backed up by junit tests, I'd
say a default clause is nosy and doesn't add anything.
OTOH if you can not see that no
Hi.
>
> FindBugs can give warnings like:
>
> Switch statement found in
> org.apache.commons.codec.binary.Base32.decode(byte[], int, int,
> BaseNCodec$Context) where default case is missing
>
> In this case for [codec], it looks like the code was carefully constructed
> and that no default claus
12 matches
Mail list logo
