Member Patterns -- the bikeshed

[Brian Goetz]

>
> This is super confusing.

It is confusing in part because you are jumping ahead to the one of the 
things that I specifically said "we're going to talk about that later", 
which is parameterized patterns.   (As I've reminded before, jumping 
ahead when you are specifically asked not to, means that you forfeit 
your right to have an opinion about the topic actually being discussed...)

So, I'll ask again: please stay focused on the discussion at hand, 
rather than trying to redesign the next part?  (And please, please, 
please, stop using words like "not", "can't", "impossible", "doesn't 
work", etc, incorrectly.  It's OK to not understand fully something.  It 
is not OK to not understand it fully and declare it to be wrong.)

I will take the feedback "I wish we had parameterized patterns now", and 
I understand why that is important to you now.  Now, lets get back to 
the topic being discussed.

(The irony here is deadly.  For several years, I've been talking model, 
you've been asking "when can we talk syntax", and I've been saying 
"wait."  Now, finally I am *asking* for a syntax discussion, and *now* 
you want to revisit model decisions?)

If you have no significant syntax opinions here (other than "I prefer 
the method-style declaration"), that's fine, just say so and we can move 
on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/attachments/20240408/d075ba2b/attachment-0001.htm>