Exploring inference for sealed types

[forax at univ-mlv.fr]

----- Mail original -----
> De: "Brian Goetz" <brian.goetz at oracle.com>
> À: "Remi Forax" <forax at univ-mlv.fr>
> Cc: "Gavin Bierman" <gavin.bierman at oracle.com>, "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net>
> Envoyé: Mardi 1 Octobre 2019 23:02:50
> Objet: Re: Exploring inference for sealed types

> Baseline says that "you have to be explicit", so omitting one of the three finality modifiers would be an error. 

ok,

> That leaves room for giving meaning to the absence of modifiers later (either implicitly final, or inferred.)

yes !

so +1 for me.

Rémi 

> 
> On 10/1/2019 4:37 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
>> I believe we should allow ourselves to add C in the future,
>> so Baseline + A + B + any subtypes of a sealed types using the permit clause
>> implicitly should be explicitly declared final, sealed or non-sealed.
>>
>> Rémi
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Brian Goetz" <brian.goetz at oracle.com>
>>> À: "Gavin Bierman" <gavin.bierman at oracle.com>, "amber-spec-experts"
>>> <amber-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net>
>>> Envoyé: Mardi 1 Octobre 2019 22:20:17
>>> Objet: Re: Exploring inference for sealed types
>>> Having received no further feedback, I'm inclined to proceed on
>>> Baseline+A+B.
>>>
>>> On 9/24/2019 2:34 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>>>> So my suggestion is to start with Baseline + (A | A&B), limiting
> >>> inference to permits clauses, and see if that is enough.