On Aug 13, 2020, at 4:11 PM, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote: > > For me it's like having a complex lock on the front door and wanting to have > the same mechanism on the opposite side of the front door (to go out) because > you already know how to unlock the front door.
Ow! Tough crowd. As you may have noted from my previous note, I’m also concerned with managing, not single or double or triple doors, but cases where there are too many doors to go through all at once. This is where languages add optional and named arguments. And once having done so, I do admit that we could use such a new thing profitably to manage wide multi-component data flows both in and out of methods, if the symmetry argument holds. And we could leave constructor blocks where they always have been, in a corner. My proposals double down on the *asymmetric* way Java delivers multiple values out of blocks, compared to how they are sent into blocks by position-argument-to-parameter binding. Brian’s point about symmetry is that it can be a siren song: You put tuples in one place for symmetry (with argument lists) and suddenly you risk having a new kind of value, neither primitive nor class nor array. (Arrays are the old tuple; you really want to do that again?) Tuples incur technical debt which makes the symmetry proposal expensive, which is why we are looking at other options as well. — John
