Yeah, +1 for me too. It’s a good start, and maybe a fine finish. I’ll comment directly to Gavin’s message on the extra inference beyond base+A+B.
> On Oct 1, 2019, at 2:09 PM, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote: > > ----- 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.
