> On Oct 27, 2022, at 3:03 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "daniel smith" <[email protected]> >> To: "Remi Forax" <[email protected]> >> Cc: "Brian Goetz" <[email protected]>, "Gavin Bierman" >> <[email protected]>, "amber-spec-experts" >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2022 11:51:23 PM >> Subject: Re: Draft Spec for Fourth Preview of Pattern Matching for Switch >> (JEP 433) and Second Preview of Record >> Patterns (JEP 432) now available > >>> On Oct 22, 2022, at 2:52 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> If i modify a record by adding a new component, i want to compiler to help >>> me to >>> find all the switches that are using that record so i can re-evaulate if the >>> new component play a role or not for each of those codes. >> >> Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't it do this already? > > yes, but with the proposed semantics, it's not possible to extract the record > instance AND have the length of the record component list checked. > > Either i can use > case Point p -> > > or > case Point(var x, var y) -> > > but this is not valid anymore > case Point(var x, var y) p -> ...
Can always do this, right? case Point p where p instanceof Point(var x, var y) ->
