break seen as a C archaism
kevinb at google.com
Wed Mar 14 18:04:27 UTC 2018
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:14 AM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:
In the meantime, let me probe for what's really uncomfortable about the
> current design point. Is it:
> - That there are two ways to yield a value, -> e and "break e", and users
> won't be able to keep them straight;
> - The idea of using a statement at all to yield a value from an
> expression seems too roundabout;
- That we are overloading an existing control construct, "break", to mean
> something just different enough to be uncomfortable;
To some degree yes, since `break <identifier>` already means something.
> - Something else?
Part of it is the ability to embed a number of statements inside an
expression (please, at least require curly braces, but still).
Part of it is that I know how to make sense of (a) current switch and (b) a
simple well-behaved nice expression switch that only uses `->`, but knowing
that I may have to deal with (c) code that is some mixture between the two
feels like additional level of complexity to me. Even if from an
implementation standpoint it's not.
Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kevinb at google.com
More information about the amber-spec-observers