Right. I mean from my point of view. The opaque type would help me write safer code with no added cost. So I care in this case.
The SIP still doesn't explain what happens here: (x: Unsigned) match { case y: Int => ... } I wouldn't say it "lacks consistency questions".
-
-
Maybe it just needs a bit more work to get past a bunch of corner cases. Hopefully, because it looks like an improvement to value classes!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I thought it did. I thought opaque said that is a compiler error?
-
Don't remember reading it and I searched the SIP for "match", but might've missed it. Possibly an error like "scrutinee is incompatible..."?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
At least for Top, parametricity forces the answer (you can't match). And to be really abstract, abstract/opaque types should do the same.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.