On 2018-03-30T14:39:30 -0400 Brian Goetz <brian.go...@oracle.com> wrote: > > To be clear, I was describing: > - We'd always do exhaustiveness checking for expression switches > - A default / total pattern always implies exhaustive > - We'd additionally consider an expression switch to be exhaustive if > all known enums are present _and_ the enum type is in the same module as > the switch > > But that's probably too fussy.
That seems rather unpleasant: If my API returns values of a sealed type and I expect API consumers to match on/switch on values of that type (consider something like Scala's Either type), it'd be very nasty if they didn't get exhaustiveness checks just because the consumers live outside of my module. Perhaps I've misunderstood and that wasn't what was intended? Additionally... If we're tying things to modules, what will happen to OSGi? The module system there isn't integrated with the JPMS in any sense yet. I suppose you could sort of argue that the entire OSGi system lives in the unnamed module, but ... -- Mark Raynsford | http://www.io7m.com
