2 ms·

catch clauses in try/catch are also matching something being thrown. People don't have problem reading try/catch, are used to it, it's already there, semantics

catch clauses in try/catch are also matching something being thrown. People don't have problem reading try/catch, are used to it, it's already there, semantics match - why complicate things? Case is better read as "captures ... [when ...]" and "case catch" simply means capturing an exception - the same way as try/catch does it. If you flip it around - if somebody would do an experiment where they'd ask 100 developers to imagine that java supports catching exceptions in switch statements my bet is that almost all, if not all would write it as "case catch ...". And there is really nothing fundamentally wrong with that. You can't catch catch handler, you can only catch an exception.

msgilligan 3y ago
> People don't have problem reading try/catch, are used to it, it's already there, semantics match - why complicate things? We don't have a problem reading try/catch because it comes from an era when Java was more procedural and less functional. "case throws" makes more sense in the functional-style Java era. (Well, makes more sense to me at least) EDIT: To clarify "catch" is a verb and contains a block of executable statements. "case throws" maps to an expression (because I assume most people writing new code that uses this will be using switch expressions, not switch statements) In this context, "case throws" is a better choice because you are talking about the _expression_ inside the "switch".