Hi Larry, niedz., 17 lis 2024 o 08:24 Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> napisał(a):
> ... > I can see the benefit of an inline constructor. Kotlin has something > similar. But I can see the benefit of it for all classes, even service > classes, not just records. (In Kotlin, it's used for service classes all > the time.) > What visibility would you expect for inline constructor properties in service classes? For records it is clearly a public fields declaration, while for service classes I'd expect private|protected - adding visibility increases the boilerplate back to normal classes. > The alternate creation syntax... OK, this one I can't really see a benefit > to, and Ilija already noted it may cause conflicts. > I agree, personally I'd see "new" keyword used like for normal classes still feasible. > I would far prefer assembling record-ish behavior myself, using the > smaller parts above. Eg: > > final readonly data class Point(int $x, int $y); > > "final" prevents extension. "readonly" makes it immutable. "data" gives > it value-passing semantics. Any class can use an inline constructor. > "with" is designed to work automatically on all objects. Boom, I've just > assembled a Record out of its constituent parts, which also makes it easier > for others to learn what I'm doing, because the features opted-in to are > explicit, not implicit. > It opens a bunch of concerns, questions like why would you use "data" keyword without having "final"? Although I like the "data" keyword very much. Kind regards, -- Michał Marcin Brzuchalski
