On 25 August 2024 23:42:20 BST, Bilge <bi...@scriptfusion.com> wrote:
>On 25/08/2024 23:31, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
>> It doesn't, unfortunately, persuade me that the behaviour proposed is
>> sensible.
>
>It should. But since it has apparently failed in that regard, I suggest you
>take me up on my challenge to implement the grammar you want with a patch and
>you will quickly convince yourself one way or the other.
I think I have been perfectly consistent in saying that I am discussing the
proposed language behaviour, not anything about how it could or should be
implemented.
If it's a case of "unfortunately, doing the right thing is impossible, so we're
proposing this compromise", then that's a reasonable position, but not how this
has been presented. I also think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that
the compromise gives away too much.
In particular, I think allowing assignments and method calls to "read out" a
value which was previously a private implementation detail accessible only
through the Reflection API, is a significant language change with a net
negative impact. If that's the required tradeoff to allow "(some expression) ?:
default", then my position is we should do without it.
Regards,
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]
