Exploring inference for sealed types

[John Rose]

Yeah, +1 for me too.  It’s a good start, and maybe a fine finish.

I’ll comment directly to Gavin’s message on the extra inference beyond base+A+B.


> On Oct 1, 2019, at 2:09 PM, forax at univ-mlv.fr wrote:
> 
> ----- 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.