> From: "Maurizio Cimadamore"
> To: "Brian Goetz" , "Tagir Valeev"
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 7:41:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Named record pattern
> While merging is an issue (if supported), I think early in the design we
> settled
> on the principle that a binding vari
While merging is an issue (if supported), I think early in the design we
settled on the principle that a binding variable should always only have
/one/ corresponding declaration (in the places where it is defined).
So, from a language perspective, I don’t see an immediate problem, in
the sense
Gavin reminded me that we are not finalizing patterns in switch in 19
(hard to keep track, sometimes), so we have a little bit of time to
figure out what we want here.
One thing that is potentially confusing is that patterns work indirectly
in a number of ways. For example, if we have a decla
Erm... I actually thought that it was your idea to allow the 'final'
modifier on patterns. This change was introduced in Java 16 (when
patterns for instanceof were finalized). Here's the initial e-mail
from you (item 2):
https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/2020-August/00
Hello!
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 6:54 PM Brian Goetz wrote:
> I must admit to being very surprised that you can do this at all! I
> don't recall discussion on this, and had you asked me, I would have said
> that `final` has no place in type-test patterns. Yet, I just tried it
> with jshell and it
