Add support for java records in pattern matching #24140
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Really great work!
I have some small nitpicks/suggestions, mostly connected to the tests.
I have also left one more general comment about the JavaRecordFields addition that isn't really actionable, but I still wanted to point this out in case you or anyone else from the compiler team have any better suggestions there.
| def javaRecordFields(tp: Type)(using Context): List[Name] = | ||
| tp.typeSymbol.getAnnotation(defn.JavaRecordFieldsAnnot) match | ||
| case Some(JavaRecordFieldsAnnotation(fields)) => fields.map(termName) | ||
| case _ => assert(false) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Doesn't matter, but a little cleaner to just return Nil here in my opinion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ideally we would not need this, since we don't need that information pickled and it's only relevant for the current compilation run. We could add a property key for a tree, but that would only work for the situations where we use the JavaOutlineParser, when we read the classfiles we would not have access to a tree on which a property could be used. I see we can really only get this information out when parsing the tree, and we don't save it anywhere else, which I guess justifies the annotation here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm 99.9% sure we can do without and I think it's best if we don't introduce this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would prefer to do this without adding new annotation, but I couldn't find another solution. If you have any suggestions, I'm happy to explore them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm 99.9% sure we can do without and I think it's best if we don't introduce this.
|
Can we have Scala's case class be a record too? seems we can't. |
Closes #20561