> De: "Brian Goetz" <brian.go...@oracle.com>
> À: "Vicente Romero" <vicente.rom...@oracle.com>, "amber-spec-experts"
> <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 19 Août 2020 01:19:54
> Objet: Re: Sealed local interfaces
> In theory, there is benefit to having local sealed interfaces, in that they
> would provide a source of exhaustiveness information for switches inside the
> method. On the other hand, we don't really want to encourage methods to be
> enormous. So at least for now, this fix seems fine.
I agree,
in my defense, i've written that code in a unit test method :)
Rémi
> On 8/18/2020 7:15 PM, Vicente Romero wrote:
>> Hi Remi,
>> On 8/17/20 10:07 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>>> I've found a discrepancies in the current spec of sealed,
>>> the current spec allows local sealed interface but you have no way to
>>> provide a
>>> sub-types apart a sealed sub interfaces.
>>> A record or an interface is allowed to be declared inside a method,
>>> by example, this is a valid code
>>> static void foo() {
>>> interface I {}
>>> record Foo() implements I {}
>>> }
>>> the interface can also be sealed
>>> static void foo() {
>>> sealed interface I {}
>>> record Foo implements I {}
>>> }
>>> but this code does not compile because Foo is a local class and a local
>>> class
>>> can not implement a sealed interface.
>>> This rule was intended to not allow this kind of code
>>> sealed interface I {}
>>> static void foo() {
>>> record Foo implements I {}
>>> }
>>> because the interface I is visible while Foo is not.
>>> But we have forgotten to discuss about the case where both Foo and I are in
>>> the
>>> same scope.
>>> I see two possible fixes
>>> - disallow sealed local interfaces
>> +1 having a local sealed class seems like unnecessary, this option makes more
>> sense to me
>>> - allow local class/record to implement a sealed interface if they are in
>>> the
>>> same scope.
>>> Rémi
>> Vicente
