> De: "Gavin Bierman" <gavin.bier...@oracle.com>
> À: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr>
> Cc: "Brian Goetz" <brian.go...@oracle.com>, "amber-spec-experts"
> <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net>
> Envoyé: Mardi 3 Septembre 2019 12:37:17
> Objet: Re: Draft JLS spec for records
> Thanks Remi.
>> - a canonical constructor can not have throws clause (from the text of the
>> section) but the grammar in 8.10.2 the CompactConstructor declaration can
>> have
>> a throw clause ?
> That is just a typo - thanks. The rest I will get back to you shortly.
humm,
thinking more about the canonical constructor
- does'nt really need a modifier (it's always public if you believe the current
state of the spec or it's the one of the record anyway)
- doesn't need to declare a type parameter
- doesn't need annotations because you get the one from the record
so it's more like an initializer than a constructor.
Given that i've always find the syntax of the canonical constructor too close
to the one of the real constructor (depending on the fact that parenthesis are
present or not),
i propose a new kind of initializer, the require initializer (obvisouly it can
be another name than "require").
An example of syntax:
record Foo(String s) {
require {
Objects.requireNonNull(s);
}
}
I also believe we should make the instance initializer illegal in record given
that a require initializer is a kind a better instance initializer because it
can access local variables.
An example that should not compile
record Foo(String s) {
require {
System.out.println("am i print first ?");
}
{
System.out.println("am i print first ?");
}
}
> Thanks,
> Gavin
Rémi
