JEP proposed to target JDK 12: 325: Switch Expressions (Preview)

Stephen Colebourne scolebourne at
Tue Aug 28 22:14:28 UTC 2018

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 22:17, <mark.reinhold at> wrote:
> 2018/8/27 16:46:55 -0700, Roman Kennke <roman at>:
> >                                                                 I'd find
> > an answer satisfactory if those who raised it agree and state here that
> > they're ok.
> Here I must disagree.
> If someone makes a suggestion during the development of a JEP, and that
> suggestion is reasonably rejected at that time, then if they really,
> really want to they can re-raise that suggestion as an objection when
> the JEP is proposed to target a specific release.  To require that the
> objection be answered to their satisfaction, however, would open the
> door to design by consensus, which I doubt anyone actually wants.

I agree with Mark here in that it is perfectly OK to consider
objections and move on.

I'm not going to be convinced that the proposed change is the best
choice for Java. Brian's explanation is reasonable enough and I won't
argue it point-by-point (despite the pejorative "snitch"). I just
happen to believe that once the good conclusions were reached in basic
semantic terms, the final leap as to the implications of those
semantics was not taken. If it had been, the further syntactic
simplification I proposed was there for the taking, something that I
firmly believe would have been in the long term interests of Java (and
where Brian and I simply disagree).

I've made my point, and so has Ben. Without further input, it has to
be time to move on.


More information about the jdk-dev mailing list