62 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
62 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
== Why is this an issue?
|
|
|
|
Nested ``++switch++`` structures are difficult to understand because you can easily confuse the cases of an inner ``++switch++`` as belonging to an outer statement or expression. Therefore nested ``++switch++`` statements and expressions should be avoided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specifically, you should structure your code to avoid the need for nested ``++switch++`` statements or expressions, but if you cannot, then consider moving the inner ``++switch++`` to another method.
|
|
|
|
=== Noncompliant code example
|
|
|
|
[source,java]
|
|
----
|
|
void foo(int n, int m) {
|
|
switch (n) {
|
|
case 0:
|
|
switch (m) { // Noncompliant; nested switch
|
|
// ...
|
|
}
|
|
case 1:
|
|
// ...
|
|
default:
|
|
// ...
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
=== Compliant solution
|
|
|
|
[source,java]
|
|
----
|
|
void foo(int n, int m) {
|
|
switch (n) {
|
|
case 0:
|
|
bar(m);
|
|
case 1:
|
|
// ...
|
|
default:
|
|
// ...
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
void bar(int m){
|
|
switch(m) {
|
|
// ...
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]
|
|
|
|
'''
|
|
== Implementation Specification
|
|
(visible only on this page)
|
|
|
|
include::../message.adoc[]
|
|
|
|
'''
|
|
== Comments And Links
|
|
(visible only on this page)
|
|
|
|
include::../comments-and-links.adoc[]
|
|
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]
|