Re: Sealed types

> De: "Brian Goetz" > À: "Remi Forax" > Cc: "amber-spec-experts" > Envoyé: Dimanche 9 Décembre 2018 19:04:40 > Objet: Re: Sealed types >> We can introduce them as sealed interface (note: interface not type) > This is a new claim. Why is it that abstract classes can’t be sealed as well? > (Ther

Re: Sealed types

> > We can introduce them as sealed interface (note: interface not type) This is a new claim. Why is it that abstract classes can’t be sealed as well? (There is less _need_ for this, as abstract classes can use access control on their constructors to simulate sealing, but that’s a weak approx

Re: Sealed types

> De: "Brian Goetz" > À: "Remi Forax" > Cc: "amber-spec-experts" > Envoyé: Dimanche 9 Décembre 2018 16:13:12 > Objet: Re: Sealed types > I thought about Remi’s argument a little more: >>> basically forcing me to write the code that the compiler generates for me >>> when i >>> use an anonymous

Re: Sealed types

I thought about Remi’s argument a little more: > >> basically forcing me to write the code that the compiler generates for me >> when i use an anonymous class. > And, it illustrates the danger of permitting syntactic shorthands out of convenience — the user will not only not understand that

Re: Sealed types

On 12/9/18 8:28 AM, Remi Forax wrote: > Hi Doug, > using colon ':' will cause trouble to people that discover Java after having > used C or C# given that ':' is used to introduce supertypes in those > languages. I just noted that ":" is available. So are others with "" prefix: ":>", "::", etc th

Re: Sealed types

Hi Doug, using colon ':' will cause trouble to people that discover Java after having used C or C# given that ':' is used to introduce supertypes in those languages. Your proposed compact declaration is a mess visually if you declare a subtype which is a sealed interface with a list of subtypes,

Re: Sealed types

On 12/7/18 1:43 PM, Brian Goetz wrote: >> Maybe "permits" -> "exclusivelyIncludes" or just "exclusively"? These >> seem less likely to be misinterpreted and also less likely to lead to >> any confusion with not-rare use of "permits" as a variable (in >> semaphores etc). > > Good thought. The main