You are right that varargs records are dancing on the edge of a cliff.
But (a) we have varargs records, and (b) array/varargs patterns are not
only for records.
If you're arguing that they are not essential *right now* and can be
deferred, that's a reasonable argument, but you'd have to
I'm sorry, I have no idea what argument you are trying to make. Start
from the beginning.
On 5/20/2022 1:27 AM, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
*From: *"Brian Goetz"
*To: *"Remi Forax"
*Cc:
Or maybe you mean something else; if so, please share!
The current proposal is more about matching and extracting the first
arguments
It is really about matching *the whole array*. Pattern matching is
about destructuring. Arrays are part of the language. They have
structure. We
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "amber-spec-experts"
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 9:18:01 PM
> Subject: Pattern matching: next steps after JEP 405
> JEP 405 has been proposed to target for 19. But, it has some loose ends that
> I'd
> like to refine before it eventually becomes a final feature.
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 3:03:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Collections patterns
>> We may want to extract sub-parts of the array / collections by example, and i
>> would prefer to have the same semantics and a similar syntax.
>
