There was discussions about the danger of only providing instanceof + the deconstruction pattern and not a way to have the same kind of destructuring when declaring local variables
By example, instead of Point p = ... int x = p.x(); int y = p.y(); one can write Point p = ... if (!(p instanceof Point(int x, int y))); I think we should restart those discussions because variables declarations is like a third places where patterns can appear (instanceof and switch being the other two). I don't really want to propose a syntax, so the next examples will be to give an idea of the semantics The idea is to allow patterns on the left side of an '='. So pattern = value; We already have Point p2 = p; // the type pattern so if we expand it with the new patterns proposed for instanceof, we get Point(int x, int y) = p; // the deconstruction pattern with explicit type and Point(var x, var y) = p; // the deconstruction pattern with var regards, Rémi
