Sounds good.
Gavin
> On 9 Nov 2019, at 11:47, Brian Goetz <brian.go...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> This is reasonable and probably easy to spec: when we define the canonical
> ctor, in addition to defining its is defined to have no type parameters.
> Since the compact ctor is shorthand for a full canonical ctor, no additional
> spec is needed for that.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Nov 9, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Tagir Valeev <amae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> Reading the latest JLS spec draft for records, chapter 8.10.5 [1] I
>> see the following:
>>
>> A compact constructor declaration provides an alternative, succinct
>> means to declare a canonical constructor for a record type.
>> CompactConstructorDeclaration:{ Annotation } { ConstructorModifier } [
>> TypeParameters ] SimpleTypeName ConstructorBody
>>
>> Is it really useful to allow type parameters specification for a
>> compact constructor, given that we cannot alter the formal parameters
>> list, thus we cannot use them there? Yes, we could use them to declare
>> local variables but this is an implementation detail, thus it should
>> not leak to the clients (especially given the fact that canonical
>> constructors are always public). Should not we exclude type parameters
>> from the compact constructor declaration?
>>
>> I think we can go even further and disable type parameters for
>> explicit canonical constructor declaration (not in compact form) as
>> well. WDYT?
>>
>> With best regards,
>> Tagir Valeev.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep359/jep359-20191031/specs/records-jls.html#jls-8.10.5
>
