On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > > The issue is not the presence or absence of closed unions. >
The issue I raised is the conspicuous, unnecessary, and inconvenient absence of exhaustive enum/variant checking in (some) languages targeting static late-bound modular compilation runtimes. I'm confused as to whether this is an issue with absence of closed types, or something else. Seems Scala requires exhaustive pattern matching, though it's not clear how this interacts with late-binding. If one doesn't supply a default-match and late-binding produces an un-handled type, what happens? If one supplies a default-match to produce known behavior in the case of an un-handled type, it breaks exhaustive match checking.
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
