JEP 433: Pattern Matching for switch (Fourth Preview)

Summary

Enhance the Java programming language with pattern matching for switch expressions and statements. Extending pattern matching to switch allows an expression to be tested against a number of patterns, each with a specific action, so that complex data-oriented queries can be expressed concisely and safely. This is a preview language feature.

History

Pattern Matching for switch was proposed as a preview feature by JEP 406 and delivered in JDK 17, proposed for a second preview by JEP 420 and delivered in JDK 18, and proposed for a third preview by JEP 427 and delivered in JDK 19. This JEP proposes a fourth preview to enable its continued co-evolution with the Record Patterns preview feature (JEP 432) and to allow other refinements based upon continued experience and feedback.

The main changes since the third preview are:

• An exhaustive switch (i.e., a switch expression or a pattern switch statement) over an enum class now throws MatchException rather than IncompatibleClassChangeError if no switch label applies at run time.

• The grammar for switch labels is simpler.

• Inference of type arguments for generic record patterns is now supported in switch expressions and statements, along with the other constructs that support patterns.

Goals

• Expand the expressiveness and applicability of switch expressions and statements by allowing patterns to appear in case labels.

• Allow the historical null-hostility of switch to be relaxed when desired.

• Increase the safety of switch statements by requiring that pattern switch statements cover all possible input values.

• Ensure that all existing switch expressions and statements continue to compile with no changes and execute with identical semantics.

Motivation

In Java 16, JEP 394 extended the instanceof operator to take a type pattern and perform pattern matching. This modest extension allows the familiar instanceof-and-cast idiom to be simplified, making it both more concise and less error-prone:

// Old code
if (obj instanceof String) {
    String s = (String)obj;
    ... use s ...
}

// New code
if (obj instanceof String s) {
    ... use s ...
}

We often want to compare a variable such as obj against multiple alternatives. Java supports multi-way comparisons with switch statements and, since Java 14, switch expressions (JEP 361), but unfortunately switch is very limited. You can only switch on values of a few types — integral primitive types (excluding long), their corresponding boxed forms, enum types, and String — and you can only test for exact equality against constants. We might like to use patterns to test the same variable against a number of possibilities, taking a specific action on each, but since the existing switch does not support that we end up with a chain of if...else tests such as:

static String formatter(Object obj) {
    String formatted = "unknown";
    if (obj instanceof Integer i) {
        formatted = String.format("int %d", i);
    } else if (obj instanceof Long l) {
        formatted = String.format("long %d", l);
    } else if (obj instanceof Double d) {
        formatted = String.format("double %f", d);
    } else if (obj instanceof String s) {
        formatted = String.format("String %s", s);
    }
    return formatted;
}

This code benefits from using pattern instanceof expressions, but it is far from perfect. First and foremost, this approach allows coding errors to remain hidden because we have used an overly general control construct. The intent is to assign something to formatted in each arm of the if...else chain, but there is nothing that enables the compiler to identify and verify this invariant. If some block — perhaps one that is executed rarely — does not assign to formatted, we have a bug. (Declaring formatted as a blank local would at least enlist the compiler’s definite-assignment analysis in this effort, but developers do not always write such declarations.) In addition, the above code is not optimizable; absent compiler heroics it will have O(n) time complexity, even though the underlying problem is often O(1).

But switch is a perfect match for pattern matching! If we extend switch statements and expressions to work on any type, and allow case labels with patterns rather than just constants, then we can rewrite the above code more clearly and reliably:

static String formatterPatternSwitch(Object obj) {
    return switch (obj) {
        case Integer i -> String.format("int %d", i);
        case Long l    -> String.format("long %d", l);
        case Double d  -> String.format("double %f", d);
        case String s  -> String.format("String %s", s);
        default        -> obj.toString();
    };
}

The semantics of this switch are clear: A case label with a pattern applies if the value of the selector expression obj matches the pattern. (We have shown a switch expression for brevity but could instead have shown a switch statement; the switch block, including the case labels, would be unchanged.)

The intent of this code is clearer because we are using the right control construct: We are saying, "the parameter obj matches at most one of the following conditions, figure it out and evaluate the corresponding arm." As a bonus, it is more optimizable; in this case we are more likely to be able to perform the dispatch in O(1) time.

Switches and null

Traditionally, switch statements and expressions throw NullPointerException if the selector expression evaluates to null, so testing for null must be done outside of the switch:

static void testFooBar(String s) {
    if (s == null) {
        System.out.println("Oops!");
        return;
    }
    switch (s) {
        case "Foo", "Bar" -> System.out.println("Great");
        default           -> System.out.println("Ok");
    }
}

This was reasonable when switch supported only a few reference types. However, if switch allows a selector expression of any type, and case labels can have type patterns, then the standalone null test feels like an arbitrary distinction, and invites needless boilerplate and opportunity for error. It would be better to integrate the null test into the switch by allowing a new null case label:

static void testFooBar(String s) {
    switch (s) {
        case null         -> System.out.println("Oops");
        case "Foo", "Bar" -> System.out.println("Great");
        default           -> System.out.println("Ok");
    }
}

The behavior of the switch when the value of the selector expression is null is always determined by its case labels. With a case null, the switch executes the code associated with that label; without a case null, the switch throws NullPointerException, just as before. (To maintain backward compatibility with the current semantics of switch, the default label does not match a null selector.)

Case refinement

Experimentation with patterns in switch suggests it is common to want to refine the test embodied by a pattern label. For example, consider the following code that switches over a Shape value:

class Shape {}
class Rectangle extends Shape {}
class Triangle  extends Shape { int calculateArea() { ... } }

static void testTriangle(Shape s) {
    switch (s) {
        case null:
            break;
        case Triangle t:
            if (t.calculateArea() > 100) {
                System.out.println("Large triangle");
                break;
            }
        default:
            System.out.println("A shape, possibly a small triangle");
    }
}

The intent of this code is to have a special case for large triangles (those whose area is over 100), and a default case for everything else (including small triangles). However, we cannot express this directly with a single pattern. We first have to write a case label that matches all triangles, and then place the test of the area of the triangle rather uncomfortably within the corresponding statement group. Then we have to use fall-through to get the correct behavior when the triangle has an area less than 100. (Note the careful placement of the break statement inside the if block.)

The problem here is that using a single pattern to discriminate among cases does not scale beyond a single condition — we need some way to express a refinement to a pattern. We therefore allow when clauses in switch blocks to specify guards to pattern case labels, e.g., case Triangle t when t.calculateArea() > 100. We refer to such a case label as a guarded case label, and to the boolean expression as the guard.

With this approach, we can revisit the testTriangle code to express the special case for large triangles directly. This eliminates the use of fall-through in the switch statement, which in turn means we can enjoy concise arrow-style (->) rules:

static void testTriangle(Shape s) {
    switch (s) {
        case null -> 
            { break; }
        case Triangle t
        when t.calculateArea() > 100 ->
            System.out.println("Large triangle");
        default ->
            System.out.println("A shape, possibly a small triangle");
    }
}

The second clause is taken if the value of s matches the pattern Triangle t and subsequently the guard t.calculateArea() > 100 evaluates to true. (The guard is able to use any pattern variables that are declared by the pattern in the case label.)

Using switch makes it easy to understand and change case labels when application requirements change. For example, we might want to split triangles out of the default path; we can do that by using two case clauses, one with a guard and one without:

static void testTriangle(Shape s) {
    switch (s) {
        case null -> 
            { break; }
        case Triangle t
        when t.calculateArea() > 100 ->
            System.out.println("Large triangle");
        case Triangle t ->
            System.out.println("Small triangle");
        default ->
            System.out.println("Non-triangle");
    }
}

Description

We enhance switch statements and expressions in three ways:

• Extend case labels to include patterns and null in addition to constants,

• Broaden the range of types permitted for the selector expressions of both switch statements and switch expressions, and

• Allow optional when clauses to follow case labels.

For convenience, we also introduce parenthesized patterns.

Patterns in switch labels

We revise the grammar for switch labels in a switch block to read (compare JLS §14.11.1):

SwitchLabel:
  case CaseConstant { , CaseConstant }
  case null [, default]
  case Pattern
  default

The main enhancement is to introduce a new case label, case p, where p is a pattern. The essence of switch is unchanged: The value of the selector expression is compared to the switch labels, one of the labels is selected, and the code associated with that label is executed or evaluated. The difference now is that for case labels with patterns, the label selected is determined by the result of pattern matching rather than by an equality test. For example, in the following code, the value of obj matches the pattern Long l, and the expression associated with the label case Long l is evaluated:

Object obj = 123L;
String formatted = switch (obj) {
    case Integer i -> String.format("int %d", i);
    case Long l    -> String.format("long %d", l);
    case Double d  -> String.format("double %f", d);
    case String s  -> String.format("String %s", s);
    default        -> obj.toString();
};

After a successful pattern match we often further test the result of the match. This can lead to cumbersome code, such as:

static void test(Object obj) {
    switch (obj) {
        case String s:
            if (s.length() == 1) { ... }
            else { ... }
            break;
        ...
    }
}

The desired test — that obj is a String of length 1 — is unfortunately split between the pattern case label and the following if statement.

To address this we introduce guarded pattern case labels by supporting an optional guard after the pattern label. This allows the above code to be rewritten so that all the conditional logic is lifted into the switch label:

static void test(Object obj) {
    switch (obj) {
        case String s when s.length() == 1 -> ...
        case String s                      -> ...
        ...
    }
}

The first clause matches if obj is both a String and of length 1. The second case matches if obj is a String of any length.

Only pattern labels can have a guard. For example, it is not valid to write a label with a case constant and a guard; e.g., case "Hello" when RandomBooleanExpression().

Sometimes we need to parenthesize patterns to improve readability. We therefore extend the language of patterns to support parenthesized patterns written (p), where p is a pattern. A parenthesized pattern (p) introduces the pattern variables that are introduced by the subpattern p. A value matches a parenthesized pattern (p) if it matches the pattern p.

There are five major language design areas to consider when supporting patterns in switch:

1. Enhanced type checking
2. Exhaustiveness of switch expressions and statements
3. Scope of pattern variable declarations
4. Dealing with null
5. Errors

1. Enhanced type checking

1a. Selector expression typing

Supporting patterns in switch means that we can relax the current restrictions on the type of the selector expression. Currently the type of the selector expression of a normal switch must be either an integral primitive type (excluding long), the corresponding boxed form (i.e., Character, Byte, Short, or Integer), String, or an enum type. We extend this and require that the type of the selector expression be either an integral primitive type (excluding long) or any reference type.

For example, in the following pattern switch the selector expression obj is matched with type patterns involving a class type, an enum type, a record type, and an array type, along with a null case label and a default:

record Point(int i, int j) {}
enum Color { RED, GREEN, BLUE; }

static void typeTester(Object obj) {
    switch (obj) {
        case null     -> System.out.println("null");
        case String s -> System.out.println("String");
        case Color c  -> System.out.println("Color: " + c.toString());
        case Point p  -> System.out.println("Record class: " + p.toString());
        case int[] ia -> System.out.println("Array of ints of length" + ia.length);
        default       -> System.out.println("Something else");
    }
}

Every case label in the switch block must be compatible with the selector expression. For a case label with a pattern, known as a pattern label, we use the existing notion of compatibility of an expression with a pattern (JLS §14.30.1).

1b. Dominance of case labels

Supporting pattern case labels means that for a given value of the selector expression it is now possible for more than one case label to potentially apply (previously, at most only one case label could apply). For example, if the selector expression evaluates to a String then both the case labels case String s and case CharSequence cs would apply.

The first issue to resolve is deciding exactly which label should apply in this circumstance. Rather than attempt a complicated best-fit approach, we adopt a simpler semantics: The first case label appearing in a switch block that applies to a value is chosen.

static void first(Object obj) {
    switch (obj) {
        case String s ->
            System.out.println("A string: " + s);
        case CharSequence cs ->
            System.out.println("A sequence of length " + cs.length());
        default -> {
            break;
        }
    }
}

In this example, if the value of obj is of type String then the first case label will apply; if it is of type CharSequence but not of type String then the second pattern label will apply.

But what happens if we swap the order of these two case labels?

static void error(Object obj) {
    switch (obj) {
        case CharSequence cs ->
            System.out.println("A sequence of length " + cs.length());
        case String s ->    // Error - pattern is dominated by previous pattern
            System.out.println("A string: " + s);
        default -> {
            break;
        }
    }
}

Now if the value of obj is of type String the CharSequence case label applies, since it appears first in the switch block. The String case label is unreachable in the sense that there is no value of the selector expression that would cause it to be chosen. By analogy to unreachable code, this is treated as a programmer error and results in a compile-time error.

More precisely, we say that the first case label case CharSequence cs dominates the second case label case String s because every value that matches the pattern String s also matches the pattern CharSequence cs, but not vice versa. This is because the type of the second pattern, String, is a subtype of the type of the first pattern, CharSequence.

An unguarded pattern case label dominates a guarded pattern case label that has the same pattern. For example, the (unguarded) pattern case label case String s dominates the guarded pattern case label case String s when s.length() > 0, since every value that matches the case label case String s when s.length() > 0 must match the case label case String s.

A guarded pattern case label dominates another pattern case label (guarded or unguarded) only when both the former's pattern dominates the latter's pattern and when its guard is a constant expression of value true. For example, the guarded pattern case label case String s when true dominates the pattern case label case String s. We do not analyze the guarding expression any further in order to determine more precisely which values match the pattern label (a problem which is undecidable in general).

A pattern case label can dominate a constant case label. For example, the pattern case label case Integer i dominates the constant case label case 42, and the pattern case label case E e dominates the constant case label case A when A is a member of enum class type E. A guarded pattern case label dominates a constant case label if the same pattern case label without the guard does. In other words, we do not check the guard, since this is undecidable in general. For example, the pattern case label case String s when s.length() > 1 dominates the constant case label case "hello", as expected; but case Integer i when i != 0 dominates the case label case 0.

All of this suggests a simple, predictable, and readable ordering of case labels in which the constant case labels should appear before the guarded pattern case labels, and those should appear before the unguarded pattern case labels:

Integer i = ...
switch (i) {
    case -1, 1 -> ...                 // Special cases
    case Integer i when i > 0 -> ...  // Positive integer cases
    case Integer i -> ...             // All the remaining integers
}

The compiler checks all case labels. It is a compile-time error for a case label in a switch block to be dominated by a preceding case label in that switch block. This dominance requirement ensures that if a switch block contains only type pattern case labels, they will appear in subtype order.

(The notion of dominance is analogous to conditions on the catch clauses of a try statement, where it is an error if a catch clause that catches an exception class E is preceded by a catch clause that can catch E or a superclass of E (JLS §11.2.3). Logically, the preceding catch clause dominates the subsequent catch clause.)

It is also a compile-time error for a switch block of a switch expression or switch statement to have more than one match-all switch label. The match-all labels are default and pattern case labels where the pattern unconditionally matches the selector expression. For example, the type pattern String s unconditionally matches a selector expression of type String, and the type pattern Object o unconditionally matches a selector expression of any reference type.

1c. Inference of type arguments in record patterns

If a record pattern names a generic record class but gives no type arguments (i.e., the record pattern uses a raw type) then the type arguments are always inferred. For example:

record MyPair<S,T>(S fst, T snd){};

static void recordInference(MyPair<String, Integer> pair){
    switch (pair) {
        case MyPair(var f, var s) -> 
            ... // Inferred record Pattern MyPair<String,Integer>(var f, var s)
        ...
    }
}

Inference of type arguments for record patterns is supported in all constructs that support patterns: switch statements and expressions, instanceof expressions, and enhanced for statements.

2. Exhaustiveness of switch expressions and statements

A switch expression requires that all possible values of the selector expression be handled in the switch block; in other words, it must be exhaustive. This maintains the property that successful evaluation of a switch expression will always yield a value. For normal switch expressions, this is enforced by a fairly straightforward set of extra conditions on the switch block.

For pattern switch expressions and statements, we achieve this by defining a notion of type coverage of switch labels in a switch block. The type coverage of all the switch labels in the switch block is then combined to determine if the switch block exhausts all the possibilities of the selector expression.

Consider this (erroneous) pattern switch expression:

static int coverage(Object obj) {
    return switch (obj) {         // Error - not exhaustive
        case String s -> s.length();
    };
}

The switch block has only one switch label, case String s. This matches any value of obj whose type is a subtype of String. We therefore say that the type coverage of this switch label is every subtype of String. This pattern switch expression is not exhaustive because the type coverage of its switch block (all subtypes of String) does not include the type of the selector expression (Object).

Consider this (still erroneous) example:

static int coverage(Object obj) {
    return switch (obj) {         // Error - still not exhaustive
        case String s  -> s.length();
        case Integer i -> i;
    };
}

The type coverage of this switch block is the union of the coverage of its two switch labels. In other words, the type coverage is the set of all subtypes of String and the set of all subtypes of Integer. But, again, the type coverage still does not include the type of the selector expression, so this pattern switch expression is also not exhaustive and causes a compile-time error.

The type coverage of a default label is all types, so this example is (at last!) legal:

static int coverage(Object obj) {
    return switch (obj) {
        case String s  -> s.length();
        case Integer i -> i;
        default -> 0;
    };
}

If the type of the selector expression is a sealed class (JEP 409) then the type coverage check can take into account the permits clause of the sealed class to determine whether a switch block is exhaustive. This can sometimes remove the need for a default clause. Consider the following example of a sealed interface S with three permitted subclasses A, B, and C:

sealed interface S permits A, B, C {}
final class A implements S {}
final class B implements S {}
record C(int i) implements S {}  // Implicitly final

static int testSealedExhaustive(S s) {
    return switch (s) {
        case A a -> 1;
        case B b -> 2;
        case C c -> 3;
    };
}

The compiler can determine that the type coverage of the switch block is the types A, B, and C. Since the type of the selector expression, S, is a sealed interface whose permitted subclasses are exactly A, B, and C, this switch block is exhaustive. As a result, no default label is needed.

Some extra care is needed when a permitted direct subclass only implements a specific parameterization of a (generic) sealed superclass. For example:

sealed interface I<T> permits A, B {}
final class A<X> implements I<String> {}
final class B<Y> implements I<Y> {}

static int testGenericSealedExhaustive(I<Integer> i) {
    return switch (i) {
        // Exhaustive as no A case possible!
        case B<Integer> bi -> 42;
    }
}

The only permitted subclasses of I are A and B, but the compiler can detect that the switch block need only cover the class B to be exhaustive since the selector expression is of type I<Integer>.

This condition of exhaustiveness applies to both pattern switch expressions and pattern switch statements. To ensure backward compatibility, all existing switch statements will compile unchanged. But if a switch statement uses any of the switch enhancements described in this JEP then the compiler will check that it is exhaustive. (Future compilers of the Java language may emit warnings for legacy switch statements that are not exhaustive.)

More precisely, exhaustiveness is required of any switch statement that uses pattern or null labels or whose selector expression is not one of the legacy types (char, byte, short, int, Character, Byte, Short, Integer, String, or an enum type). For example:

sealed interface S permits A, B, C {}
final class A implements S {}
final class B implements S {}
record C(int i) implements S {}  // Implicitly final

static void switchStatementExhaustive(S s) {
    switch (s) {    // Error - not exhaustive;
                    // missing clause for permitted class B!
        case A a :
            System.out.println("A");
            break;
        case C c :
            System.out.println("C");
            break;
    };
}

Making most switches exhaustive is just a matter of adding a simple default clause at the end of the switch block. This leads to clearer and easier to verify code. For example, the following pattern switch statement is not exhaustive and is erroneous:

Object obj = ...
switch (obj) {    // Error - not exhaustive!
    case String s:
        System.out.println(s);
        break;
    case Integer i:
        System.out.println("Integer");
        break;
}

It can be made exhaustive trivially:

Object obj = ...
switch (obj) {
    case String s:
        System.out.println(s);
        break;
    case Integer i:
        System.out.println("Integer");
        break;
    default:    // Now exhaustive!
        break;
}

The notion of exhaustiveness is made more complicated by record patterns (JEP 432) since these patterns support the nesting of other patterns inside them. Accordingly, the notion of exhaustiveness has to reflect this potentially recursive structure.

3. Scope of pattern variable declarations

Pattern variables (JEP 394) are local variables that are declared by patterns. Pattern variable declarations are unusual in that their scope is flow-sensitive. As a recap consider the following example, where the type pattern String s declares the pattern variable s:

static void test(Object obj) {
    if ((obj instanceof String s) && s.length() > 3) {
        System.out.println(s);
    } else {
        System.out.println("Not a string");
    }
}

The declaration of s is in scope in the right-hand operand of the && expression, as well as in the "then" block. However, it is not in scope in the "else" block: In order for control to transfer to the "else" block the pattern match must fail, in which case the pattern variable will not have been initialized.

We extend this flow-sensitive notion of scope for pattern variable declarations to encompass pattern declarations occurring in case labels with three new rules:

1. The scope of a pattern variable declaration which occurs in a switch label includes any when clause of that label.

2. The scope of a pattern variable declaration which occurs in a case label of a switch rule includes the expression, block, or throw statement that appears to the right of the arrow.

3. The scope of a pattern variable declaration which occurs in a case label of a switch labeled statement group includes the block statements of the statement group. Falling through a case label that declares a pattern variable is forbidden.

This example shows the first rule in action:

static void test(Object obj) {
    switch (obj) {
        case Character c
        when c.charValue() == 7:
            System.out.println("Ding!");
            break;
        default:
            break;
        }
    }
}

The scope of the declaration of the pattern variable c includes the when expression of the switch label.

This variant shows the second rule in action:

static void test(Object obj) {
    switch (obj) {
        case Character c -> {
            if (c.charValue() == 7) {
                System.out.println("Ding!");
            }
            System.out.println("Character");
        }
        case Integer i ->
            throw new IllegalStateException("Invalid Integer argument: "
                                            + i.intValue());
        default -> {
            break;
        }
    }
}

Here the scope of the declaration of the pattern variable c is the block to the right of the first arrow. The scope of the declaration of the pattern variable i is the throw statement to the right of the second arrow.

The third rule is more complicated. Let us first consider an example where there is only one case label for a switch labeled statement group:

static void test(Object obj) {
    switch (obj) {
        case Character c:
            if (c.charValue() == 7) {
                System.out.print("Ding ");
            }
            if (c.charValue() == 9) {
                System.out.print("Tab ");
            }
            System.out.println("Character");
        default:
            System.out.println();
    }
}

The scope of the declaration of the pattern variable c includes all the statements of the statement group, namely the two if statements and the println statement. The scope does not include the statements of the default statement group, even though the execution of the first statement group can fall through the default switch label and execute these statements.

We forbid the possibility of falling through a case label that declares a pattern variable. Consider this erroneous example:

static void test(Object obj) {
    switch (obj) {
        case Character c:
            if (c.charValue() == 7) {
                System.out.print("Ding ");
            }
            if (c.charValue() == 9) {
                System.out.print("Tab ");
            }
            System.out.println("character");
        case Integer i:                 // Compile-time error
            System.out.println("An integer " + i);
        default:
            break;
    }
}

If this were allowed and the value of obj were a Character then execution of the switch block could fall through the second statement group (after case Integer i:) where the pattern variable i would not have been initialized. Allowing execution to fall through a case label that declares a pattern variable is therefore a compile-time error.

This is why a switch label consisting of multiple pattern labels, e.g. case Character c: case Integer i: ..., is not permitted. Similar reasoning applies to the prohibition of multiple patterns within a single case label: Neither case Character c, Integer i: ... nor case Character c, Integer i -> ... is allowed. If such case labels were allowed then both c and i would be in scope after the colon or arrow, yet only one of them would have been initialized depending on whether the value of obj was a Character or an Integer.

On the other hand, falling through a label that does not declare a pattern variable is safe, as this example shows:

void test(Object obj) {
    switch (obj) {
        case String s:
            System.out.println("A string");
        default:
            System.out.println("Done");
    }
}

4. Dealing with null

Traditionally, a switch throws NullPointerException if the selector expression evaluates to null. This is well-understood behavior and we do not propose to change it for any existing switch code.

However, given that there is a reasonable and non-exception-bearing semantics for pattern matching and null values, we have the opportunity to make pattern switch more null-friendly while remaining compatible with existing switch semantics.

First, we introduce a new null case label . We then lift the blanket rule that a switch immediately throws NullPointerException if the value of the selector expression is null. Instead, we inspect the case labels to determine the behavior of a switch:

• If the selector expression evaluates to null then any null case label is said to match. If there is no such label associated with the switch block then the switch throws NullPointerException, as before.

• If the selector expression evaluates to a non-null value then we select a matching case label, as normal. If no case label matches then any default label is considered to match.

For example, given the declaration below, evaluating test(null) will print null! rather than throw NullPointerException:

static void test(Object obj) {
    switch (obj) {
        case null     -> System.out.println("null!");
        case String s -> System.out.println("String");
        default       -> System.out.println("Something else");
    }
}

This new behavior around null is as if the compiler automatically enriches the switch block with a case null whose body throws NullPointerException. In other words, this code:

static void test(Object obj) {
    switch (obj) {
        case String s  -> System.out.println("String: " + s);
        case Integer i -> System.out.println("Integer");
        default        -> System.out.println("default");
    }
}

is equivalent to:

static void test(Object obj) {
    switch (obj) {
        case null      -> throw new NullPointerException();
        case String s  -> System.out.println("String: "+s);
        case Integer i -> System.out.println("Integer");
        default        -> System.out.println("default");
    }
}

In both examples, evaluating test(null) will cause NullPointerException to be thrown.

We preserve the intuition from the existing switch construct that performing a switch over null is an exceptional thing to do. The difference in a pattern switch is that you have a mechanism to directly handle this case inside the switch rather than outside. If you see a null label in a switch block then this label will match a null value. If you do not see a null label in a switch block then switching over a null value will throw NullPointerException, as before.

It is also meaningful, and not uncommon, to want to combine a null case with a default. To that end we allow a null case label to have an optional default; for example:

Object obj = ...
switch (obj) {
    ...
    case null, default ->
        System.out.println("The rest (including null)");
}

The value of obj matches this label if either it is the null reference value, or none of the other case labels match.

It is a compile-time error for a switch block to have both a null case label with a default and a default label.

5. Errors

Pattern matching can complete abruptly. For example, when matching a value against a record pattern, the record’s accessor method can complete abruptly. In this case, pattern matching is defined to complete abruptly by throwing a MatchException. If such a pattern appears as a label in a switch then the switch will also complete abruptly by throwing a MatchException.

If a pattern is guarded with a when expression, and evaluating the when expression completes abruptly, then the switch completes abruptly for the same reason.

If no label in a pattern switch matches the value of the selector expression then the switch completes abruptly by throwing a MatchException, since pattern switches must be exhaustive.

For example:

record R(int i){
    public int i(){      // accessor method for i
        return i / 0;
    }
}

static void exampleAnR(R r) {
    switch(r) {
        case R(var i): System.out.println(i);
    }
}

The invocation exampleAnR(new R(42)) causes a MatchException to be thrown.

By contrast:

static void example(Object obj) {
    switch (obj) {
        case R r when (r.i / 0 == 1): System.out.println("It's an R!");
        default: break;
    }
}

The invocation example(new R(42)) causes an ArithmeticException to be thrown.

To align with pattern switch semantics, switch expressions over an enum class now throw MatchException rather than IncompatibleClassChangeError when no switch label applies at run time. This is a minor incompatible change to the language.

Future work

• At the moment, a pattern switch does not support the primitive types boolean, long, float, and double. Their utility seems minimal, but support for these could be added.

• We expect that, in the future, general classes will be able to declare deconstruction patterns to specify how they can be matched against. Such deconstruction patterns can be used with a pattern switch to yield very succinct code. For example, if we have a hierarchy of Expr with subtypes for IntExpr (containing a single int), AddExpr and MulExpr (containing two Exprs), and NegExpr (containing a single Expr), we can match against an Expr and act on the specific subtypes all in one step:

  int eval(Expr n) {
       return switch (n) {
           case IntExpr(int i) -> i;
           case NegExpr(Expr n) -> -eval(n);
           case AddExpr(Expr left, Expr right) -> eval(left) + eval(right);
           case MulExpr(Expr left, Expr right) -> eval(left) * eval(right);
           default -> throw new IllegalStateException();
       };
  }

  Without such pattern matching, expressing ad-hoc polymorphic calculations like this requires using the cumbersome visitor pattern. Pattern matching is generally more transparent and straightforward.

• It may also be useful to add AND and OR patterns, to allow more expressivity for case labels with patterns.

Alternatives

• Rather than support a pattern switch we could instead define a type switch that just supports switching on the type of the selector expression. This feature is simpler to specify and implement but considerably less expressive.

• There are many other syntactic options for guarded pattern labels, such as p where e, p if e, or even p &&& e.

• An alternative to guarded pattern labels is to support guarded patterns directly as a special pattern form, e.g. p && e. Having experimented with this in previous previews, the resulting ambiguity with boolean expressions has led us to prefer when clauses in pattern switches.

Dependencies

This JEP builds on pattern matching for instanceof (JEP 394) and also the enhancements offered by switch expressions (JEP 361). When the Record Patterns preview feature (JEP 432) is finalized, the resulting implementation will likely make use of dynamic constants (JEP 309).