Reputation: 1591
Just trying to figure out how to use many multiple cases for a Java switch statement. Here's an example of what I'm trying to do:
switch (variable)
{
case 5..100:
doSomething();
break;
}
versus having to do:
switch (variable)
{
case 5:
case 6:
etc.
case 100:
doSomething();
break;
}
Any ideas if this possible, or what a good alternative is?
Upvotes: 158
Views: 482069
Reputation: 7216
JEP 427: Pattern Matching for switch (Third Preview) arrived as a preview feature in Java 19, and allows you to solve the problem with a so called "guarded patten":
Integer variable = new Random().nextInt(200);
switch (variable) {
case Integer v when v >= 5 && v <= 100
-> System.out.println("in my range");
default -> System.out.println("out of range");
}
Hot to enable preview Features in your Java, see this SO-Question.
By Java 20 or 21, this syntax will probably be available as a standard feature.
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 59
I found a solution to this problem... We can use multiple conditions in switch cases in java.. but it require multiple switch cases..
public class MultiCSwitchTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int i = 209;
int a = 0;
switch (a = (i>=1 && i<=100) ? 1 : a){
case 1:
System.out.println ("The Number is Between 1 to 100 ==> " + i);
break;
default:
switch (a = (i>100 && i<=200) ? 2 : a) {
case 2:
System.out.println("This Number is Between 101 to 200 ==> " + i);
break;
default:
switch (a = (i>200 && i<=300) ? 3 : a) {
case 3:
System.out.println("This Number is Between 201 to 300 ==> " + i);
break;
default:
// You can make as many conditions as you want;
break;
}
}
}
}
}
Upvotes: -2
Reputation: 1779
This is possible with switch enhancements in Java 14. Following is a fairly intuitive example of how the same can be achieved.
switch (month) {
case 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 -> System.out.println("this month has 31 days");
case 4, 6, 9 -> System.out.println("this month has 30 days");
case 2 -> System.out.println("February can have 28 or 29 days");
default -> System.out.println("invalid month");
}
Upvotes: 29
Reputation: 4375
JEP 354: Switch Expressions (Preview) in JDK-13 and JEP 361: Switch Expressions (Standard) in JDK-14 will extend the switch statement so it can be used as an expression.
Now you can:
case L ->
):
The code to the right of a "case L ->" switch label is restricted to be an expression, a block, or (for convenience) a throw statement.
To yield a value from a switch expression, the
break
with value statement is dropped in favor of ayield
statement.
Switch expression example:
public class SwitchExpression {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int month = 9;
int year = 2018;
int numDays = switch (month) {
case 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 -> 31;
case 4, 6, 9, 11 -> 30;
case 2 -> {
if (java.time.Year.of(year).isLeap()) {
System.out.println("Wow! It's leap year!");
yield 29;
} else {
yield 28;
}
}
default -> {
System.out.println("Invalid month.");
yield 0;
}
};
System.out.println("Number of Days = " + numDays);
}
}
Upvotes: 10
Reputation: 8990
One alternative instead of using hard-coded values could be using range mappings on the the switch statement instead:
private static final int RANGE_5_100 = 1;
private static final int RANGE_101_1000 = 2;
private static final int RANGE_1001_10000 = 3;
public boolean handleRanges(int n) {
int rangeCode = getRangeCode(n);
switch (rangeCode) {
case RANGE_5_100: // doSomething();
case RANGE_101_1000: // doSomething();
case RANGE_1001_10000: // doSomething();
default: // invalid range
}
}
private int getRangeCode(int n) {
if (n >= 5 && n <= 100) {
return RANGE_5_100;
} else if (n >= 101 && n <= 1000) {
return RANGE_101_1000;
} else if (n >= 1001 && n <= 10000) {
return RANGE_1001_10000;
}
return -1;
}
Upvotes: 2
Reputation: 6290
From the last java-12 release multiple constants in the same case label is available in preview language feature
It is available in a JDK feature release to provoke developer feedback based on real world use; this may lead to it becoming permanent in a future Java SE Platform.
It looks like:
switch(variable) {
case 1 -> doSomething();
case 2, 3, 4 -> doSomethingElse();
};
See more JEP 325: Switch Expressions (Preview)
Upvotes: 7
Reputation: 12728
According to this question, it's totally possible.
Just put all cases that contain the same logic together, and don't put break
behind them.
switch (var) {
case (value1):
case (value2):
case (value3):
//the same logic that applies to value1, value2 and value3
break;
case (value4):
//another logic
break;
}
It's because case
without break
will jump to another case
until break
or return
.
EDIT:
Replying the comment, if we really have 95 values with the same logic, but a way smaller number of cases with different logic, we can do:
switch (var) {
case (96):
case (97):
case (98):
case (99):
case (100):
//your logic, opposite to what you put in default.
break;
default:
//your logic for 1 to 95. we enter default if nothing above is met.
break;
}
If you need finer control, if-else
is the choice.
Upvotes: 17
Reputation: 151
for alternative you can use as below:
if (variable >= 5 && variable <= 100) {
doSomething();
}
or the following code also works
switch (variable)
{
case 5:
case 6:
etc.
case 100:
doSomething();
break;
}
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 41
// Noncompliant Code Example
switch (i) {
case 1:
doFirstThing();
doSomething();
break;
case 2:
doSomethingDifferent();
break;
case 3: // Noncompliant; duplicates case 1's implementation
doFirstThing();
doSomething();
break;
default:
doTheRest();
}
if (a >= 0 && a < 10) {
doFirstThing();
doTheThing();
}
else if (a >= 10 && a < 20) {
doTheOtherThing();
}
else if (a >= 20 && a < 50) {
doFirstThing();
doTheThing(); // Noncompliant; duplicates first condition
}
else {
doTheRest();
}
//Compliant Solution
switch (i) {
case 1:
case 3:
doFirstThing();
doSomething();
break;
case 2:
doSomethingDifferent();
break;
default:
doTheRest();
}
if ((a >= 0 && a < 10) || (a >= 20 && a < 50)) {
doFirstThing();
doTheThing();
}
else if (a >= 10 && a < 20) {
doTheOtherThing();
}
else {
doTheRest();
}
Upvotes: 4
Reputation: 3093
It is possible to handle this using Vavr library
import static io.vavr.API.*;
import static io.vavr.Predicates.*;
Match(variable).of(
Case($(isIn(5, 6, ... , 100)), () -> doSomething()),
Case($(), () -> handleCatchAllCase())
);
This is of course only slight improvement since all cases still need to be listed explicitly. But it is easy to define custom predicate:
public static <T extends Comparable<T>> Predicate<T> isInRange(T lower, T upper) {
return x -> x.compareTo(lower) >= 0 && x.compareTo(upper) <= 0;
}
Match(variable).of(
Case($(isInRange(5, 100)), () -> doSomething()),
Case($(), () -> handleCatchAllCase())
);
Match is an expression so here it returns something like Runnable
instance instead of invoking methods directly. After match is performed Runnable
can be executed.
For further details please see official documentation.
Upvotes: 2
Reputation: 617
Maybe not as elegant as some previous answers, but if you want to achieve switch cases with few large ranges, just combine ranges to a single case beforehand:
// make a switch variable so as not to change the original value
int switchVariable = variable;
//combine range 1-100 to one single case in switch
if(1 <= variable && variable <=100)
switchVariable = 1;
switch (switchVariable)
{
case 0:
break;
case 1:
// range 1-100
doSomething();
break;
case 101:
doSomethingElse();
break;
etc.
}
Upvotes: 51
Reputation: 108937
Sadly, it's not possible in Java. You'll have to resort to using if-else
statements.
Upvotes: 93
Reputation: 61
Basically:
if (variable >= 5 && variable <= 100)
{
doSomething();
}
If you really needed to use a switch, it would be because you need to do various things for certain ranges. In that case, yes, you're going to have messy code, because things are getting complex and only things which follow patterns are going to compress well.
The only reason for a switch is to save on typing the variable name if you're just testing for numeric switching values. You aren't going to switch on 100 things, and they aren't going to be all doing the same thing. That sounds more like an 'if' chunk.
Upvotes: 6
Reputation: 1009
public class SwitchTest {
public static void main(String[] args){
for(int i = 0;i<10;i++){
switch(i){
case 1: case 2: case 3: case 4: //First case
System.out.println("First case");
break;
case 8: case 9: //Second case
System.out.println("Second case");
break;
default: //Default case
System.out.println("Default case");
break;
}
}
}
}
Out:
Default case
First case
First case
First case
First case
Default case
Default case
Default case
Second case
Second case
Src: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/nutsandbolts/switch.html
Upvotes: 67
Reputation: 1417
The second option is completely fine. I'm not sure why a responder said it was not possible. This is fine, and I do this all the time:
switch (variable)
{
case 5:
case 6:
etc.
case 100:
doSomething();
break;
}
Upvotes: 108
Reputation:
One Object Oriented option to replace excessively large switch
and if/else
constructs is to use a Chain of Responsibility Pattern
to model the decision making.
Chain of Responsibility Pattern
The chain of responsibility pattern allows the separation of the source of a request from deciding which of the potentially large number of handlers for the request should action it. The class representing the chain role channels the requests from the source along the list of handlers until a handler accepts the request and actions it.
Here is an example implementation that is also Type Safe using Generics.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
/**
* Generic enabled Object Oriented Switch/Case construct
* @param <T> type to switch on
*/
public class Switch<T extends Comparable<T>>
{
private final List<Case<T>> cases;
public Switch()
{
this.cases = new ArrayList<Case<T>>();
}
/**
* Register the Cases with the Switch
* @param c case to register
*/
public void register(final Case<T> c) { this.cases.add(c); }
/**
* Run the switch logic on some input
* @param type input to Switch on
*/
public void evaluate(final T type)
{
for (final Case<T> c : this.cases)
{
if (c.of(type)) { break; }
}
}
/**
* Generic Case condition
* @param <T> type to accept
*/
public static interface Case<T extends Comparable<T>>
{
public boolean of(final T type);
}
public static abstract class AbstractCase<T extends Comparable<T>> implements Case<T>
{
protected final boolean breakOnCompletion;
protected AbstractCase()
{
this(true);
}
protected AbstractCase(final boolean breakOnCompletion)
{
this.breakOnCompletion = breakOnCompletion;
}
}
/**
* Example of standard "equals" case condition
* @param <T> type to accept
*/
public static abstract class EqualsCase<T extends Comparable<T>> extends AbstractCase<T>
{
private final T type;
public EqualsCase(final T type)
{
super();
this.type = type;
}
public EqualsCase(final T type, final boolean breakOnCompletion)
{
super(breakOnCompletion);
this.type = type;
}
}
/**
* Concrete example of an advanced Case conditional to match a Range of values
* @param <T> type of input
*/
public static abstract class InRangeCase<T extends Comparable<T>> extends AbstractCase<T>
{
private final static int GREATER_THAN = 1;
private final static int EQUALS = 0;
private final static int LESS_THAN = -1;
protected final T start;
protected final T end;
public InRangeCase(final T start, final T end)
{
this.start = start;
this.end = end;
}
public InRangeCase(final T start, final T end, final boolean breakOnCompletion)
{
super(breakOnCompletion);
this.start = start;
this.end = end;
}
private boolean inRange(final T type)
{
return (type.compareTo(this.start) == EQUALS || type.compareTo(this.start) == GREATER_THAN) &&
(type.compareTo(this.end) == EQUALS || type.compareTo(this.end) == LESS_THAN);
}
}
/**
* Show how to apply a Chain of Responsibility Pattern to implement a Switch/Case construct
*
* @param args command line arguments aren't used in this example
*/
public static void main(final String[] args)
{
final Switch<Integer> integerSwitch = new Switch<Integer>();
final Case<Integer> case1 = new EqualsCase<Integer>(1)
{
@Override
public boolean of(final Integer type)
{
if (super.type.equals(type))
{
System.out.format("Case %d, break = %s\n", type, super.breakOnCompletion);
return super.breakOnCompletion;
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
};
integerSwitch.register(case1);
// more instances for each matching pattern, granted this will get verbose with lots of options but is just
// and example of how to do standard "switch/case" logic with this pattern.
integerSwitch.evaluate(0);
integerSwitch.evaluate(1);
integerSwitch.evaluate(2);
final Switch<Integer> inRangeCaseSwitch = new Switch<Integer>();
final Case<Integer> rangeCase = new InRangeCase<Integer>(5, 100)
{
@Override
public boolean of(final Integer type)
{
if (super.inRange(type))
{
System.out.format("Case %s is between %s and %s, break = %s\n", type, this.start, this.end, super.breakOnCompletion);
return super.breakOnCompletion;
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
};
inRangeCaseSwitch.register(rangeCase);
// run some examples
inRangeCaseSwitch.evaluate(0);
inRangeCaseSwitch.evaluate(10);
inRangeCaseSwitch.evaluate(200);
// combining both types of Case implementations
integerSwitch.register(rangeCase);
integerSwitch.evaluate(1);
integerSwitch.evaluate(10);
}
}
This is just a quick straw man that I whipped up in a few minutes, a more sophisticated implementation might allow for some kind of Command Pattern
to be injected into the Case
implementations instances to make it more of a call back IoC style.
Once nice thing about this approach is that Switch/Case statements are all about side affects, this encapsulates the side effects in Classes so they can be managed, and re-used better, it ends up being more like Pattern Matching in a Functional language and that isn't a bad thing.
I will post any updates or enhancements to this Gist on Github.
Upvotes: 23