> On Aug 11, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Brian Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: > > . . . I might be talked into _allowing_ you to say `final case` (or `finally > <pattern>`) as a way to force the totality type checking, and make the > totality clear. > > But, if that's what we're talking about, I'd prefer to keep that on the shelf > as an option, rather than preemptively plunk for it now. We can always add it > later compatibly, and I'm still not convinced this is remotely as big a > problem as you think it is. We knew back from the switch expression days > that we might want to come back for a "check me for exhaustiveness please" > option, and we still might. I agree that the important thing for now is to have some kind of plan, but it need not be implemented right away.
- Re: Next up for patterns: type patterns in switch Brian Goetz
- Re: Next up for patterns: type patterns in switch Remi Forax
- Re: Next up for patterns: type patterns in switch Brian Goetz
- Re: Next up for patterns: type patterns in switch forax
- Re: Next up for patterns: type patterns in switch Brian Goetz
- Re: Next up for patterns: type patterns in switch forax
- Re: Next up for patterns: type patterns in switch Brian Goetz
- On the last case being explicitly total forax
- Re: On the last case being explicitly total Brian Goetz
- Re: On the last case being explicitly total Guy Steele
- Re: On the last case being explicitly total Guy Steele
- Re: Next up for patterns: type patterns in switch Guy Steele
- Re: Next up for patterns: type patterns in switch Brian Goetz
- Re: Next up for patterns: type patterns in switch Guy Steele
- Re: Next up for patterns: type patterns in switch Brian Goetz
- Re: Next up for patterns: type patterns in switch Guy Steele
- Re: Next up for patterns: type patterns in switch forax
- Re: Next up for patterns: type patterns in switch Brian Goetz
- Re: Next up for patterns: type patterns in switch forax
- Re: Next up for patterns: type patterns in switch Brian Goetz
- Re: Next up for patterns: type patterns in switch forax
