Updated patterns-in-switch doc
brian.goetz at oracle.com
Sun Sep 13 18:34:54 UTC 2020
> I don’t quite get the leap from “no constant patterns” to changing
> the syntax of deconstruction patterns, but in any case, we
> definitely don’t want this (and in fact, for the same reasons
> cited in the section on constant patterns, and others.)
> if case Point(x, y) can not mean instanceof Point p where p.x == x &&
> p.y == y, then case Point(x, y) can have the same meaning has a lambda
> (x, y), introducing two fresh variables x and y.
If you're making the claim that "It would not be disastrously
inconsistent for it to work that way", I agree. But I think it would
still be quite foolish of us to go that way anyway. The benefit is tiny
(a few fewer characters typed) at a very considerable cost -- reduced
readability, and potential ambiguities.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the amber-spec-experts