In the vein of JEP feedback, I believe it makes sense to support primitive types in pattern matching, and will make sense to support value types in the future. And I can see the great work that has been done so far to enable this.
Unfortunately, I hate the proposed syntactic approach in JEP 507. It wasn't really clear to me as to *why* I hated the syntax until I had enough time to really think through what Java does in the area of primitive type casts, and why extending that as-is to pattern matching would IMO be a huge mistake. (Please note that I fully grasp the pedagogical approach wrt instanceof defending an unsafe cast, but no matter how much it is repeated, I don't buy it, and I don't believe it is good enough by itself.) To capture my thoughts, I've written up how Java's current approach to casts leads me to an alternative proposal - type conversion casts, and type conversion patterns: https://tinyurl.com/typeconvertjava1 thanks Stephen
