On Thu, 5 May 2022 15:17:11 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore <mcimadam...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> You are right. It is the ii) which iteratively checks the component pattern >> list L. > > I now believe that the check is needed to properly classify patterns based on > the type of the i-th component. That said, not sure this should be a > subtyping check, or a type equality A good question. Consider code like: private void test(R r) { switch (r) { case R(A a, A v) -> {} case R(B b, A v) -> {} case R(I i, B v) -> {} } } final class A implements I {} sealed interface I permits A, B {} final class B implements I {} record R(I i1, I i2) {} The switch is exhaustive - all the possible combinations are covered. When checking the first component, the code will categorize the patterns like: A -> R(A a, A v), R(I i, B v) B -> R(B b, A v), R(I i, B v) I -> R(I i, B v) this categorization is done using the subtype check, so that `R(I i, B v)` will appear in the list for `A`. When checking the second component, the possibility for `I` is not exhaustive (does not cover `A` in the second component), but the possibilities for `A` and `B` are exhaustive, and they together cover `I`. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8516