> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 6:20:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [External] : Re: Record pattern and side effects
>>> We’ve already asked one of the questions on side effects (though not sure we
>>> agreed on the answer): what if the
We’ve already asked one of the questions on side effects (though not sure we
agreed on the answer): what if the dtor throws? The working story is that the
exception is wrapped in a MatchException. (I know you don’t like this, but
let’s not rehash the same arguments.)
Wrapping exceptions into
"case Foo fooButNull" is equivalent to "case null" but with a binding
typed as Foo that's why i ask if it should even compile,
the compiler should ask for an explicit "case null".
It may be "equivalent" in our eyes, but the language doesn't currently
incorporate nullity into the type system.
- Original Message -
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 4:58:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Record pattern and side effects
> Yes, this is something we have to get “on the record”.
>
> Record patterns are a special case of deconstru
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Remi Forax" , "amber-spec-experts"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 10:02:22 PM
> Subject: Re: case null / null pattern (v2)
> With the currently specified semantics, the second pattern is dead, because
> switches will only match null at the top level with a case nu
