We already discussed those rules when we discuss instanceof, it means
that "x instanceof primitive" has different meaning depending on the
type of x
No, it does not. It means "does x match the pattern P" everywhere. It
is pattern P is that has different meanings depending on type. This may
sound like a silly distinction, but it is not! Pattern matching is
inherently polymorphic -- it is all about reflecting dynamic conversions
statically -- and exhibits the *same* polymorphism regardless of where
it occurs.
Object x = ...
if (x instanceof short) { ... } // <=> instanceof Short + unboxing
Where x is a reference type, yes. How is that not a reasonable question
to ask? And, why would we not want duality with:
record R(short s) { }
...
new R(x)
Asking `r instanceof R(short s)` is akin to asking "could this R have
come from passing some x to the R constructor". And that would work if
x were byte, or x were a long literal in the value range of short, or a
Short, or....
It's also another creative way to have an action at distance,
More like *the same* way.
Anyway, your opposition to the entirety of this sub-feature is noted.
