We’re trying to make switch
es simpler to understand at a glance.
Misunderstanding the control flow of a switch
is a common source of bugs.
As part of this simplification, new-style arrow (->
) switches are encouraged
instead of old-style colon (:
) switches. And where possible, neighboring cases
are grouped together (e.g. case A, B, C
).
:
) switch
es:case
and the case
’s code. For example, case
HEARTS:
switch
block is large, just
skimming each case
can be toilsome. Fall-through can also be conditional
(see example 5. below). In this scenario, one would potentially need to
reason about all possible flows for each case
. When conditionally
falling-through multiple case
s, the number of potential control flows can
grow rapidlycase
s are propagated down to later
case
s, however the values that initialize those local variables do not
propagate in the same way->
) switch
es:case
and the case
’s code. For example, case
HEARTS ->
case
s fall through; no control flow analysis neededcase
s (within a switch
)case
s; if you define a local
variable within a case
, it can only be used within that specific case
.enum Suit {HEARTS, CLUBS, SPADES, DIAMONDS};
private void foo(Suit suit) {
switch(suit) {
case HEARTS:
System.out.println("Red hearts");
break;
case DIAMONDS:
System.out.println("Red diamonds");
break;
case SPADES:
// Fall through
case CLUBS:
bar();
System.out.println("Black suit");
}
}
Which can be simplified by grouping and using a new-style switch:
enum Suit {HEARTS, CLUBS, SPADES, DIAMONDS};
private void foo(Suit suit) {
switch(suit) {
case HEARTS -> System.out.println("Red hearts");
case DIAMONDS -> System.out.println("Red diamonds");
case SPADES, CLUBS -> {
bar();
System.out.println("Black suit");
}
}
}
return switch ...
Sometimes switch
is used with a return
for each case
, like this:
enum SideOfCoin {OBVERSE, REVERSE};
private String renderName(SideOfCoin sideOfCoin) {
switch(sideOfCoin) {
case OBVERSE:
return "Heads";
case REVERSE:
return "Tails";
}
// This should never happen, but removing this will cause a compile-time error
throw new RuntimeException("Unknown side of coin");
}
Note that even though a case
is present for each possible value of the enum
,
a boilerplate “should never happen” clause is still needed. The transformed code
is simpler and doesn’t need a “should never happen” clause.
enum SideOfCoin {OBVERSE, REVERSE};
private String renderName(SideOfCoin sideOfCoin) {
return switch(sideOfCoin) {
case OBVERSE -> "Heads";
case REVERSE -> "Tails";
};
}
If you nevertheless wish to define an explicit “should never happen” clause,
this can be accomplished by placing the logic inside a default
case. For
example:
enum SideOfCoin {OBVERSE, REVERSE};
private String foo(SideOfCoin sideOfCoin) {
return switch(sideOfCoin) {
case OBVERSE -> "Heads";
case REVERSE -> "Tails";
default -> throw new RuntimeException("Unknown side of coin"); // should never happen
};
}
When the checker detects an existing default
that appears to be redundant, it
may suggest a secondary auto-fix which removes the redundant default
and its
code (if any).
switch
If every branch of a switch
is making an assignment to the same variable, the
code can be simplified into a combined assignment and switch
:
enum Suit {HEARTS, CLUBS, SPADES, DIAMONDS};
int score = 0;
private void updateScore(Suit suit) {
switch(suit) {
case HEARTS:
// Fall thru
case DIAMONDS:
score += -1;
break;
case SPADES:
score += 2;
break;
case CLUBS:
score += 3;
}
}
This can be simplified as follows:
enum Suit {HEARTS, CLUBS, SPADES, DIAMONDS};
int score = 0;
private void updateScore(Suit suit) {
score += switch(suit) {
case HEARTS, DIAMONDS -> -1;
case SPADES -> 2;
case CLUBS -> 3;
};
}
Taking this one step further: if a local variable is defined, and then
immediately followed by a switch
in which every case
assigns to that same
variable, then all three (the switch
, the variable declaration, and the
assignment) can be merged:
enum Suit {HEARTS, CLUBS, SPADES, DIAMONDS};
private void updateStatus(Suit suit) {
int score;
switch(suit) {
case HEARTS:
// Fall thru
case DIAMONDS:
score = 1;
break;
case SPADES:
score = 2;
break;
case CLUBS:
score = 3;
}
...
}
Becomes:
enum Suit {HEARTS, CLUBS, SPADES, DIAMONDS};
private void updateStatus(Suit suit) {
int score = switch(suit) {
case HEARTS, DIAMONDS -> 1;
case SPADES -> 2;
case CLUBS -> 3;
};
...
}
switch
Even when the simplifications discussed above are not applicable, conversion to
new arrow switch
es can be automated by this checker:
enum Suit {HEARTS, CLUBS, SPADES, DIAMONDS};
private void processEvent(Suit suit) {
switch (suit) {
case CLUBS:
String message = "hello";
var anotherMessage = "salut";
processMessages(message, anotherMessage);
break;
case DIAMONDS:
anotherMessage = "bonjour";
processMessage(anotherMessage);
}
}
Note that the local variables referenced in multiple cases are hoisted up out of
the switch
statement, and var
declarations are converted to explicit types,
resulting in:
enum Suit {HEARTS, CLUBS, SPADES, DIAMONDS};
private void processEvent(Suit suit) {
String anotherMessage;
switch (suit) {
case CLUBS -> {
String message = "hello";
anotherMessage = "salut";
processMessages(message, anotherMessage);
}
case DIAMONDS -> {
anotherMessage = "bonjour";
processMessage(anotherMessage);
}
}
}
Here’s an example of a complex statement switch
with conditional fall-through
and various control flows. Unfortunately, the checker does not currently have
the ability to automatically convert such code to new-style arrow switch
es.
Manually converting the code could be a good opportunity to improve its
readability.
How many potential execution paths can you spot?
enum Suit {HEARTS, CLUBS, SPADES, DIAMONDS};
private int foo(Suit suit){
switch(suit) {
case HEARTS:
if (bar()) {
break;
}
// Fall through
case CLUBS:
if (baz()) {
return 1;
} else if (baz2()) {
throw new AssertionError(...);
}
// Fall through
case SPADES:
// Fall through
case DIAMONDS:
return 0;
}
return -1;
}
Suppress false positives by adding the suppression annotation @SuppressWarnings("StatementSwitchToExpressionSwitch")
to the enclosing element.