Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Literal Scalar Types

On Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 20:05 Seifeddine Gmati <azjezz@carthage.software> wrote: > While this RFC works alongside the pattern matching proposal by Larry and > Ilija, neither requires the other. The two are unrelated for several > reasons. > > So to answer your question, no, I am not looking for pattern matching. I > see these as two distinct features that address different needs within the > language. > I don't believe they are addressing entirely different needs. I believe the feature that static analysis tools support is pattern matching more than it is typing. The question for me becomes whether patterns be represented through types, or whether they should be matched against values. Strictly denoting types and validating patterns are two separate concerns. One asks "What can I do with this?" while the other asks "Is this within expected bounds?". I am personally not against validating patterns within type declarations, as is supported in Typescript, Scala (I believe), and to an extent PHP with false|true. But I do believe they are different concerns. I also think that, this being a form of pattern matching, if approved would set a direction for the pattern matching RFC to treat patterns more closely as types than assertions and guards (as their RFC currently proposes). I am again not saying this is a bad thing, but it is worth acknowledging. >