Exploring inference for sealed types

Brian Goetz brian.goetz at oracle.com
Tue Oct 1 21:02:50 UTC 2019

Baseline says that "you have to be explicit", so omitting one of the 
three finality modifiers would be an error.  That leaves room for giving 
meaning to the absence of modifiers later (either implicitly final, or 

On 10/1/2019 4:37 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
> I believe we should allow ourselves to add C in the future,
> so Baseline + A + B + any subtypes of a sealed types using the permit clause implicitly should be explicitly declared final, sealed or non-sealed.
> Rémi
> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Brian Goetz" <brian.goetz at oracle.com>
>> À: "Gavin Bierman" <gavin.bierman at oracle.com>, "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net>
>> Envoyé: Mardi 1 Octobre 2019 22:20:17
>> Objet: Re: Exploring inference for sealed types
>> Having received no further feedback, I'm inclined to proceed on
>> Baseline+A+B.
>> On 9/24/2019 2:34 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>>> So my suggestion is to start with Baseline + (A | A&B), limiting
>>> inference to permits clauses, and see if that is enough.

More information about the amber-spec-experts mailing list