On 23.07.2017 17:21, Guillaume Laforge wrote: [...]
Speaking of pattern matching, there's Brian Goetz' proposal here, for pattern matching for Java: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~briangoetz/amber/pattern-match.html We should also avoid offering a different syntax as to what might come up in the JDK later on, to avoid having two distinct syntaxes for the same thing. (although this proposal doesn't cover union types per se, it's something to factor in, in our decisions)
I see one possible influence depending if we can declare a sum type or not. Because if you can really declare one (and I really think you will want to do that), you will potentially use it in a switch-case. That will open a lot of problems
bye Jochen
