> On Jun 2, 2022, at 2:59 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>
>
>> Oh, I guess I missed your point here, thinking that P and Q were constants.
>>
>> Your comment implies that the two rules that restrict usage of
>> patterns—can't fall through past one, and can't combine one (via ',') with
>> most other
Oh, I guess I missed your point here, thinking that P and Q were
constants.
Your comment implies that the two rules that restrict usage of
patterns—can't fall through past one, and can't combine one (via ',')
with most other labels—could be relaxed slightly in the case of
patterns that hav
On Jun 2, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Dan Smith
mailto:daniel.sm...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Ideally, the fallthrough rule should be about _bindings_, not _patterns_. If P
an Q are patterns with no binding variables, then it should be OK to say:
case P:
case Q:
The rule about fallthrough is to prevent fallin
> On Jun 2, 2022, at 12:08 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>
>> In this framing, the restrictions about sets of elements in a single label
>> don't apply, because we're talking about two different labels. But we have
>> rules to prevent various abuses. Examples:
>>
>> case 23: case Pattern: // illegal
- Original Message -
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "daniel smith" , "amber-spec-experts"
>
> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 8:08:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Simplifying switch labels
>> In this framing, the restrictions about sets of elements in a single label
>> don't
>> apply, because we're tal
In this framing, the restrictions about sets of elements in a single label
don't apply, because we're talking about two different labels. But we have
rules to prevent various abuses. Examples:
case 23: case Pattern: // illegal before and now, due to fallthrough Pattern
rule
Ideally, the
