----- Mail original ----- > De: "Brian Goetz" <brian.go...@oracle.com> > À: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> > Cc: "Gavin Bierman" <gavin.bier...@oracle.com>, "amber-spec-experts" > <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Mardi 1 Octobre 2019 23:02:50 > Objet: Re: Exploring inference for sealed types
> Baseline says that "you have to be explicit", so omitting one of the three > finality modifiers would be an error. ok, > That leaves room for giving meaning to the absence of modifiers later (either > implicitly final, or inferred.) yes ! so +1 for me. Rémi > > On 10/1/2019 4:37 PM, Remi Forax wrote: >> I believe we should allow ourselves to add C in the future, >> so Baseline + A + B + any subtypes of a sealed types using the permit clause >> implicitly should be explicitly declared final, sealed or non-sealed. >> >> Rémi >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >>> De: "Brian Goetz" <brian.go...@oracle.com> >>> À: "Gavin Bierman" <gavin.bier...@oracle.com>, "amber-spec-experts" >>> <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> >>> Envoyé: Mardi 1 Octobre 2019 22:20:17 >>> Objet: Re: Exploring inference for sealed types >>> Having received no further feedback, I'm inclined to proceed on >>> Baseline+A+B. >>> >>> On 9/24/2019 2:34 PM, Brian Goetz wrote: >>>> So my suggestion is to start with Baseline + (A | A&B), limiting > >>> inference to permits clauses, and see if that is enough.
