> From: "Brian Goetz" <[email protected]>
> To: "amber-spec-experts" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 11:01:18 PM
> Subject: Declared patterns -- translation and reflection
> Time to take a peek ahead at _declared patterns_. Declared patterns come in
> three varieties -- deconstruction patterns, static patterns, and instance
> patterns (corresponding to constructors, static methods, and instance
> methods.)
> I'm going to start with deconstruction patterns, but the basic game is the
> same
> for all three.
Once we have pattern methods, we can have an interface that defines a pattern
method and a class that implement it,
something like
interface I {
foo() (Object, int); // fake syntax: the first parenthesis are the parameters,
the seconds are the binding types
}
class A implements I {
foo() (String, int) { ... }
}
Do we agree that a binding type can be covariant ? (before saying no, think
about generics that's the reason we have return type covariance in Java).
In that case, are we are in trouble with the translation strategy ?
Rémi
