Updated patterns-in-switch doc

Remi Forax forax at univ-mlv.fr
Sun Sep 13 10:35:55 UTC 2020

At the end of the section "refining-totality" [1], 
The sentence "Guarded patterns should be ignored entirely for purposes of computing totality." implies that if two patterns that only differ from one having a where and the other have not it's not valif to have them both in a switch seems wrong for me. 

By example, a switch like this is illegal 
switch(foo) { 
case Bar bar where bar.x == 0 -> ... 
case Bar bar -> ... 

I believe that what we want is to consider that a pattern with a where clause is considered as a "subtype" of the pattern without a where clause, whatever the where clause is exactly. 


[1] https://github.com/openjdk/amber-docs/blob/master/site/design-notes/type-patterns-in-switch.md#refining-totality 

> De: "Brian Goetz" <brian.goetz at oracle.com>
> À: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net>
> Envoyé: Mardi 8 Septembre 2020 18:43:01
> Objet: Updated patterns-in-switch doc

> I have updated

> [
> https://github.com/openjdk/amber-docs/blob/master/site/design-notes/type-patterns-in-switch.md
> |
> https://github.com/openjdk/amber-docs/blob/master/site/design-notes/type-patterns-in-switch.md
> ]

> based on our discussions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/attachments/20200913/e2ed8667/attachment.htm>

More information about the amber-spec-experts mailing list