hg: lambda/lambda/langtools: Implemented features are:

[Alex Buckley]

"catch (Foo x)" names a disjunctive type - albeit not a very interesting 
one - and it would not be backward compatible to ban assignment to x.

This is, of course, a discussion for the Coin list.

Alex

On 7/30/2010 11:53 AM, Osvaldo Doederlein wrote:
> One possible approach is: make disjunctive types not only eligible for
> effectively-final analysis, but _obligatory_ final. Any attempt to
> reassign results in error, and that's it. You're doing that on new
> syntax and typing features, so there's no legacy or backwards-compat
> issues. The user could still put an explicit 'final', that would be
> redundant. Not perfect, but there is plenty precedent in Java for this
> kind of redundancy and for qualifiers that are needed in some contexts
> but default/obligatory (e.g. 'public' for interface members, or
> 'final' itself for private methods).
> 
> A+
> Osvaldo