Switch statement in java and continue

Question

Hi guys I have a really simple question:

I have the following code :

for (...) 
{ 
   if(something == null)
   {
     switch(ENUM_TYPE) 
     {
      case something:
         something == new Something();
         break;
      case other:
       continue;
      }
      some instructions that i don't want to execute when other.
    }
}

Is this a good design ?

instead of using switch, why not use a sentinel variable to execute the code? — Binayaka Chakraborty, May 01 '13 at 11:51
Get rid of if(something1). Why do you want that if you have switch? You can always execute your normal flow using default case. — IndoKnight, May 01 '13 at 11:51
This is hard to know for sure without a context. (data types, number of cases, etc) — Breavyn, May 01 '13 at 11:52
My really intention is to not execute the "some instructions" when the case is other — AlexGo, May 01 '13 at 11:53

score 1 · Answer 1 · answered May 01 '13 at 12:02

The basic idea of a switch statement is to have multiple alternatives from which to choose.

In your example you have only one so using a switch statement does not really make sense.

So from your example, if I am reading it right, I would do something like the following statements which is clearer and easier to read. The problem with using continue is that it is a kind of jump and the resulting source code is a bit confusing.

for (...) {
  if (something1 && something != other) {
    if (something == something) {
        // do the something stuff
    }
    // do the stuff that is for everything else
  }
}

There are limitations on a switch statement and what the various case alternatives can look like which reduces the flexibility of the switch statement.

See this discussion on the switch statement and how it is restricted to some built in types and enumerations. Java Switch Statement.

score 0 · Answer 2 · answered May 01 '13 at 11:59

0

Can you try to write your "Some Instuctions" code inside the case something:. so it will be executed when case is something: only.

answered May 01 '13 at 11:59

Anand Devaraj

725
4
12
22

It is a setter that sets a null if the case is other – AlexGo May 01 '13 at 12:00

score 0 · Answer 3 · answered Aug 09 '13 at 18:25

No, for the simple reason you're violating the 'Do One Thing' principle. Instead:

for (...) 
{ 
   if(something == null)
   {
     switch(ENUM_TYPE) 
     {
      case something://I think you have variable overloading here.
         methodForSomethingCase();
         additionalInstructions();
         break;
      case other:
         //essentially do nothing
         break;
      default:
         additionalInstructions(); 
     }
  }
}

In this manner you can ensure that your additional instructions are orthogonal to what needs to happen in this method: which is to switch between possible items for each iteration. This makes testing easier. It makes it easier to change your additional instructions, or what happens in each case. It makes your code easier to read. And when you have some other case with yet other instructions, it makes that easy, too.

Remember: each method should do one and only one thing.

Switch statement in java and continue

3 Answers3