Reviewing feedback on patterns in switch

[Brian Goetz]

One thing that we have, perhaps surprisingly, *not* gotten feedback on 
is forcing all non-legacy switches (legacy type, legacy labels, 
statement only) to be exhaustive.  I would have thought people would 
complain about pattern switches needing to be exhaustive, but no one 
has! So either no one has tried it, or we got away with it...

On 1/25/2022 2:46 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
> We’ve previewed patterns in switch for two rounds, and have received some feedback.  Overall, things work quite well, but there were a few items which received some nontrivial feedback, and I’m prepared to suggest some changes based on them.  I’ll summarize them here and create a new thread for each with a more detailed description.
>
> I’ll make a call for additional items a little later; for now, let’s focus on these items before adding new things (or reopening old ones.)
>
> 1.  Treatment of total patterns in switch / instanceof
>
> 2.  Positioning of guards
>
> 3.  Type refinements for GADTs
>
> 4.  Diamond for type patterns (and record patterns)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/attachments/20220216/38e80026/attachment.htm>