Sealed types -- updated proposal

forax at forax at
Thu Jan 17 21:23:40 UTC 2019

> De: "Brian Goetz" <brian.goetz at>
> À: "Remi Forax" <forax at>
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts at>
> Envoyé: Jeudi 17 Janvier 2019 19:20:05
> Objet: Re: Sealed types -- updated proposal

>> Given that the proposal introduce the notion of sealed types, "sealed" is a
>> better keyword.

> Note that `sealed` already has a meaning in the context of packages (see
> Package.isSealed()), though it is minor.

yes, and the introduction of modules made it more or less obsolete. 

> Is there a different hyphenation of final other than semi-final that maintains
> the connection to finality, but doesn’t weird people out?

final-hierarchy, final-type, final-bound, bounded-final, final-close, final-abstract, final-transitive, final-tree, final-subtypes, super-final 

> (One thing I dislike about sealed / non-sealed is that now we have _contextual_
> keywords with hyphens, which wasn’t the discipline we were aiming for in the
> hyphenation proposal.)

lets try with other keywords: 
close-class/open-class, abstract-close/abstract-open, extends-close/extends-open 

Note that in our context, the keyword sealed/non-sealed has to be followed by either a modifier or class/interface/enum so we can allow it inside the code even if it's not pretty. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the amber-spec-experts mailing list