> On Feb 16, 2022, at 9:57 AM, Brian Goetz wrote:
> . . .
> What if I want to use a partial pattern, and then customize either the
> throwing part or provide default values? I can provide an else clause:
>
> Object o = ...
> let String s = o
> else throw new NotStringException();
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 5:03:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [External] : Re: Reviewing feedback on patterns in switch
> Of course, in an ecosystem as diverse as Java develope
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 3:57:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [External] : Re: Reviewing feedback on patterns in switch
> OK, I'll make you a deal: I'll answer your
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 3:48:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [External] : Re: Reviewing feedback on patterns in switch
>> Not sure it's a no-brainer.
>>
Of course, in an ecosystem as diverse as Java developers, one routinely
expects to get complaints about both X and ~X. Which makes it notable
that we have not gotten any complaints about "why do you force me to
write an empty default". (I'm not complaining!)
The case you raise -- legacy { sw
OK, I'll make you a deal: I'll answer your question about let/bind,
under the condition that we not divert the discussion on that right now
-- there'll be a proper writeup soon. The answer here is entirely for
context.
If you don't agree, stop reading now :)
On 2/15/2022 5:58 PM, Remi Forax
Not sure it's a no-brainer.
The question is more a question of consistency. There are two
consistencies and we have to choose one, either switch never allows
null by default and users have to opt-in with case null or we want
patterns to behave the same way if they are declared at top-level or
