>
>> I kind a like the intellectual separation between
>> - a sealed interface which represent a closed type and requires a permit
>> clause and
>> - an enum interface which represent a sum type which is sugar on top of
>> sealed interface + records.
>
To be clear, I think what Alan is suggesting, and what Remi is supporting, is:
- Make “sealed” the primitive for defining closed types, as originally
proposed, and also
- Make the following
enumerated interface Foo {
R(X), S(Y);
STUFF
}
sugar for
sealed interface Foo
permits R, S {
STUFF
record R(X) implements Foo { }
record S(Y) implements Foo { }
}
Is that correct?
