It’s too harsh to say your example shows the semantics are just wrong.
I think they are right, but possibly incomplete. The exclusion of case
200 is the job of dead code detection logic in the language, the same
kind of logic that also reports an error on `"foo" instanceof List`.
Then there are the old murky rules that allow an integral constant like
100 to assign to `byte` only because 100 fits in the byte range while
200 does not. The duals of those rules will surely speak to the
restriction of `case 200:` matching a byte.
On 12 Sep 2022, at 15:29, Remi Forax wrote:
No new rules; just appeal to type patterns.
It shows that the semantics you propose for the primitive type pattern
is not the right one.
Currently, a code like this does not compile
byte b = ...
switch(b) {
case 200 -> ....
}
because 200 is not a short which is great because otherwise at runtime
it will never be reached.
But if we apply the rules above + your definition of the primitive
pattern, the code above will happily compile because it is equivalent
to
byte b = ...
switch(b) {
case short s when s == 200 -> ....
}
