There has been a small change to the spec available at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep360/latest/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep360/latest/>
[This brings the spec in line with the compiler on the corner-case of an enum
class that both implements a sealed interface and contains an enum constant
with a class body.]
Thanks,
Gavin
> On 6 May 2020, at 16:13, Gavin Bierman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> We have made some presentational changes to the spec for JEP360 (Sealed
> Types), which are available at:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep360/latest/
>
> The only semantic change is a new error if the direct superclass or direct
> superinterface of a local class is `sealed`. A more complete set of changes
> to address all interactions between local and member classes and sealed types
> (see [1] for some of these) will come later, although perhaps not until JDK
> 16.
>
> Thanks,
> Gavin
>
> [1]
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/2020-May/002156.html
>
>
>
>> On 20 Apr 2020, at 22:50, Gavin Bierman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> The latest (and hopefully final) draft of JEP 360 (Sealed Types) is
>> available at:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep360/latest
>>
>> The changes since the last draft was circulated in February [1]:
>>
>> * Some minor typos have been corrected, including changing the title of
>> 8.1.6.
>>
>> * We have make corrections in a number of places to make it clear that the
>> name
>> in a `permits` clause is not a type (and can not be annotated, for example).
>>
>> * We now require a functional interface to not be `sealed`, rather than
>> imposing
>> checks on target types of lambda expressions.
>>
>> * We have removed the changes to narrowing reference conversion which allowed
>> for stricter checking of cast conversions wrt sealed type hierarchies. We
>> have
>> decided to defer this feature until a later release to allow us to develop a
>> broader treatment of "disjoint types" that can be used not just in cast
>> conversion, but in other places such as bounds checking and pattern matching.
>>
>> The refined cast conversion was nice to have, but really only will make a
>> difference when we get to patterns in switches, so it makes sense to spend
>> some
>> more time now considering our design rather than refining cast conversion in
>> a
>> piecewise manner.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gavin
>>
>> [1]
>> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/2020-February/002031.html
>>
>
