Draft JEPs for Patterns in switch and Record Patterns

[Remi Forax]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Hendrikx" <hjohn at xs4all.nl>
> To: "Gavin Bierman" <gavin.bierman at oracle.com>, "amber-dev" <amber-dev at openjdk.org>
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts at openjdk.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 10:11:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Draft JEPs for Patterns in switch and Record Patterns

> In https://openjdk.org/jeps/8300542, the example in "Improved support
> for enum constant case labels" seems to be incorrect.
> 
> I think the `goodEnumSwitch2`:
> 
>     static void goodEnumSwitch2(Currency c) {
> 
> Should use `Coin` as parameter:
> 
>     static void goodEnumSwitch2(Coin c) {
> 
> Also, the enum is called `Coin`, but `Coins` is used a qualifier in
> several places.
> 
> --John

Also s.equalsIgnoreCase("YES") is better than s.toUpperCase().equals("YES")

Rémi

> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> From "Gavin Bierman" <gavin.bierman at oracle.com>
> To "amber-dev at openjdk.org" <amber-dev at openjdk.org>
> Cc "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts at openjdk.org>
> Date 28/02/2023 17:21:42
> Subject Draft JEPs for Patterns in switch and Record Patterns
> 
>>Hello,
>>
>>We are planning to finalize the two pattern matching JEPs in JDK 21. Drafts of
>>these final JEPs are available here:
>>
>>Pattern matching for switch: https://openjdk.org/jeps/8300542
>>Record patterns:             https://openjdk.org/jeps/8300541
>>
>>We're proposing some small changes from the preview versions about to appear in
>>JDK 20. These include:
>>
>>- We're dropping parenthesized patterns. They were leftover from a previous
>>version of patterns, and they weren't used very much. They complicate the spec
>>for not a lot of gain.
>>
>>- We're going to support case labels that are the qualified name of enum
>>constants, and allow switches over non-enum types to have enum case labels
>>provided they use the qualified names of the enum constants and these labels
>>are assignment compatible with the switch type.
>>
>>- We're dropping the support for record patterns in the header of enhanced for
>>statements. These will re-appear in a separate forthcoming JEP.
>>
>>Please take a look at these new JEPs and give us your feedback (either on this
>>list or directly to me).
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Gavin