> It seems that sometimes it could be useful to have intersection types
> in patterns.
Yes, its worth thinking about.
> Another interesting case is when LHO of matching operator is not
> assignable from pattern type. Like `if (getFoo() instanceof Bar bar) {
> bar.bar(); bar.foo(); }`. We know that getFoo() returns Foo, thus bar
> is Foo as well. Probably it's type could be narrowed to the (Foo &
> Bar) intersection automatically.
Another way to get here is: let the user reuse the name:
Foo f;
if (f instanceof Bar f) { … refine type of f to Foo&Bar … }
You could call this “manual flow typing”, where rather than magically rewriting
the type of f, we allow you to explicitly refine the type of f.
