One thing that we have, perhaps surprisingly, *not* gotten feedback on
is forcing all non-legacy switches (legacy type, legacy labels,
statement only) to be exhaustive. I would have thought people would
complain about pattern switches needing to be exhaustive, but no one
has! So either no one has tried it, or we got away with it...
On 1/25/2022 2:46 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
We’ve previewed patterns in switch for two rounds, and have received some
feedback. Overall, things work quite well, but there were a few items which
received some nontrivial feedback, and I’m prepared to suggest some changes
based on them. I’ll summarize them here and create a new thread for each with
a more detailed description.
I’ll make a call for additional items a little later; for now, let’s focus on
these items before adding new things (or reopening old ones.)
1. Treatment of total patterns in switch / instanceof
2. Positioning of guards
3. Type refinements for GADTs
4. Diamond for type patterns (and record patterns)
