> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 3:30:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [External] : Re: Patterns and GADTs (was: Reviewing feedback on
> patterns in switch)
> I don’t object to having
lv.fr> wrote:
From: "Brian Goetz" mailto:brian.go...@oracle.com>>
To: "Remi Forax" mailto:fo...@univ-mlv.fr>>
Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
mailto:amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 1:28:19 PM
S
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 1:28:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [External] : Re: Patterns and GADTs (was: Reviewing feedback on
> patterns in switch)
>> The instanceof exampl
The instanceof example is not a source backward compatible change, remember
that instanceof is not a preview feature.
I’m well aware, can you give an example where flow typing of *type variables
only* might lead to incompatibility? (I’m aware that this is a possibility,
but you’re stating it l
- Original Message -
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "amber-spec-experts"
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 8:49:08 PM
> Subject: Patterns and GADTs (was: Reviewing feedback on patterns in switch)
>> 3. Type refinements for GADTs
>
> There ar
> 3. Type refinements for GADTs
There are a number of unsatisfying aspects to how we currently handle GADTs;
specifically, we are missing the type refinement process outlined in "Simple
unification-based type inference for GADTs” (SPJ et al, 2005). Here are some
examples of where we fall down
