On Mar 9, 2021, at 10:47 AM, Brian Goetz <brian.go...@oracle.com> wrote: > > >> Apart from what have said about letting grobble to fully access to the >> bindings > > Except that argument doesn't make sense. Accessing the bindings is not a > special behavior of grobble, but a natural consequence of flow scoping. If I > have P && g (or P & grobble(g)), then the scoping rules will tell us that the > true set of P is present in g, and we're done. Nothing special here.
Piling on: If patterns ever have in-args (in addition to out-args, and they will!), then flow-scoping, regularly applied, will allow those in-args to access previously bound out-args to the left, within the same compound pattern, whether in an instanceof pattern or a case label pattern. And, guards (whether built-in && as I claim they should be) or a privileged use of in-args on a standard method, will naturally have access to those same leftward out-arg bindings. I think it’s a great model. The reason we are agonizing here is kind of artificial, because in-args in patterns are a 99.99% probable future, of which guards are the first manifestation. — John
