On May 1, 2019, at 5:32 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>
> If there is only one constant of type Empty and the construction is typesafe,
> it can be a huge win.
If Empty is an inline (value) type with no components,
then Empty.default is the singleton, and there's nothing
else to say about it. This is
> De: "Brian Goetz"
> À: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "Alan Malloy" , "amber-spec-experts"
>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 1 Mai 2019 14:37:23
> Objet: Re: Feedback on Sealed Types
>> It may solve the enclosing issue because the ';' syntactically separate A, B
>> and
>> C from the content of I which is declared af
>
>> I kind a like the intellectual separation between
>> - a sealed interface which represent a closed type and requires a permit
>> clause and
>> - an enum interface which represent a sum type which is sugar on top of
>> sealed interface + records.
>
To be clear, I think what Alan is sugg
> It may solve the enclosing issue because the ';' syntactically separate A, B
> and C from the content of I which is declared after the ';', so A, B and C
> can be top-level.
Trying to make these top level has the same “how do I find the source file”
problem that aux classes have.
> I kind
> De: "Brian Goetz"
> À: "Alan Malloy"
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
> Envoyé: Lundi 29 Avril 2019 23:01:17
> Objet: Re: Feedback on Sealed Types
> It would be nice if we could "just" overload enum itself to support a
> record-like option:
> enum Node {
> AddNode(Node a, Node b),
> MulNode(Node a
