I agree with Alan. While I believe that Rémi is correct insofar as you can
write “var” in place of a type in any type pattern “T x”, in a deconstruction
pattern “P(...) [d]” the occurrence of P is not a type; rather, it names a
deconstructor. It does so happen that right now all deconstructors (like all
constructors) share the name of an associated type, but it is important not to
confuse them. You cannot replace a deconstructor name with “var” any more than
you can write “new var()” or “new MyInterface()”.
—Guy
> On Sep 7, 2020, at 5:36 AM, Alan Malloy <amal...@google.com> wrote:
>
>
> I would be very surprised if that were valid. The inner vars are fine, of
> course. However, your outer one has not replaced a type, but a deconstructor
> reference, or whatever we're calling the opposite of a constructor. "Any
> object which can be deconstructed into two constituent objects" will surely
> not be a useful query very often, and I wouldn't expect the language to
> support it.
>
>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020, 1:24 AM Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
>> Just a question,
>> do we agree that the syntax below is valid ?
>>
>> Point point = ...
>> switch(point) {
>> case var(var x, var y): ...
>> }
>>
>> i.e. that var can be written everywhere there is a type in a Pattern.
>>
>> Rémi
