Peter, > On 7 Oct 2019, at 15:31, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > .. > Yeah, but now the spec explicitly spells out that: "The serialized form of a > record object is a sequence of values derived from the final instance fields > of the object.", which is wrong. Imagine a custom accessor doing some > normalization instead of canonical constructor, because record author wants > to preserve information for internal logic. In the future, > deconstructors/extractors would probably have to specify that they must be > aligned with accessors. Perhaps the spec should speak about "component > values" and then specify that currently the only way to obtain them is via > accessors.
Ok, I see your point now. I’m really not sure how much customization accessors can or should do, but I do see your reasoning. Let me ponder this a little, and I’ll reply here shortly. -Chris.
