Expression switch exception naming
brian.goetz at oracle.com
Fri Mar 30 19:10:32 UTC 2018
Yes, you misunderstood :)
You would always get an exhaustiveness check. What you'd not get is the
"grace" of having said:
without a default, and having that still be considered exhaustive
because these are all the alternatives known at compile time. It would
be like today, where flow analysis sometimes requires you to have a
default on an enum switch even though you've covered all the bases.
On 3/30/2018 3:06 PM, Mark Raynsford wrote:
> That seems rather unpleasant: If my API returns values of a sealed type
> and I expect API consumers to match on/switch on values of that type
> (consider something like Scala's Either type), it'd be very nasty if
> they didn't get exhaustiveness checks just because the consumers live
> outside of my module.
> Perhaps I've misunderstood and that wasn't what was intended?
More information about the amber-spec-observers