Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #31138
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: ensuring unreachability |
| Date | 2015-02-17 08:23 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <mbvfbp$cq1$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <slrnme63vm.uoi.avl@login.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
On 2/17/2015 4:54 AM, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> Recently I came across a snippet like this:
> switch (someEnumVar) {
> case E1:
> if (...) {
> ...; return;
> } else if (...) {
> ...; throw ...;
> } else {
> ...; continue; // enclosing loop
> }
> case E2: ...
> }
>
> No fall-through is supposed to ever happen from case E1 to case E2.
> All branches in "case E1" exit abnormally. But due to the complexity
> it isn't overly obvious. Lateron, someone might add another else-if
> branch and forget about having it exit abnormally, then it might just
> happen that it does fall through, which in the given context is never
> ever wanted.
>
> What I'd like to do is set a marker just before case E2.
>
> Obviously, I cannot place any normal statement, because the compiler
> would recognize it as unreachable and barf. So, I'd like to have some
> kind of anti-statement, that's ok to be unreachable, but would make the
> compiler barf if it ever *became* reachable during later development.
I'd suggest deleting the final `else' and its brackets:
case E1:
if (...) {
...; return;
} else if (...) {
...; throw ...;
}
...;
continue;
case E2: ...
--
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
ensuring unreachability Andreas Leitgeb <avl@auth.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2015-02-17 09:54 +0000
Re: ensuring unreachability Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-02-17 08:23 -0500
Re: ensuring unreachability Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@huldreskog.localdomain> - 2015-02-17 13:54 -0600
Re: ensuring unreachability Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-02-17 15:51 -0500
Re: ensuring unreachability Andreas Leitgeb <avl@auth.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2015-02-18 00:40 +0000
Re: ensuring unreachability Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-02-18 08:49 -0500
Re: ensuring unreachability Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjdehf@hotmail.com.invalid> - 2015-02-18 16:40 +0200
Re: ensuring unreachability Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-02-18 10:16 -0500
Re: ensuring unreachability Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-02-18 11:02 -0500
Re: ensuring unreachability Robbie Brown <rob@example.com> - 2015-02-19 09:48 +0000
Re: ensuring unreachability Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-02-20 09:39 -0800
Re: ensuring unreachability Robbie Brown <rob@example.com> - 2015-02-19 09:50 +0000
Re: ensuring unreachability v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2015-02-19 18:20 +0000
Re: ensuring unreachability Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-02-19 15:24 -0500
Re: ensuring unreachability Andreas Leitgeb <avl@auth.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2015-02-19 01:28 +0000
Re: ensuring unreachability Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-02-17 18:49 -0500
Re: ensuring unreachability Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-02-18 00:59 +0000
csiph-web