I haven't read all the discussions in this thread, so sorry if my
points were already covered.
As it turned out, that’s probably best :)
It looks like relocating the problem to defaults have a hole for this
trivial switch:
switch(obj) {
case null: // fallthrough
default:
}
If we think that default case always throws for null, should this
switch throw?
Nice “catch”, fall through claims another victim.
To summarize some of the previous discussions: the original document
kind of leaves “default” to rot, but perhaps it can be rehabilititated
to have more of a role, such as indicating “this switch is total and
this is the last case.” I’m going to start another discussion on this.
It's unclear for me how exhaustiveness on nested patterns plays with
null. case Box(Circle c) and case Box(Rect r) don't cover case
Box(null) which is a valid possibility for Box<Shape> type.
It’s not even clear how exhaustiveness plays with null even without
nesting :) Moved to a separate thread.
I'm still heavily concerned about any patterns with the explicit type
(`T t` on an operand of type `U`, where `U <: T`).
To be moved to a separate thread.
