On 6/12/2022 12:21 PM, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
*From: *"Brian Goetz"
*To: *"Remi Forax"
*Cc: *"amber-spec-experts"
*Sent: *Saturday, June 11, 2022 8:16:26 PM
*Su
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2022 8:16:26 PM
> Subject: Re: "With" for records
> We also probably want a rule to _prevent_ assignment to any locals *other
> than*
We also probably want a rule to _prevent_ assignment to any locals
*other than* the synthetic component locals. Assigning to uplevel
locals from within a `with` block seems like asking for trouble; the
with block is like a transform on the component locals.
However, we may need a story (hope
I got a private mail asking, basically: why not "just" generate withers
for each component, so you could say `point.x(newX).y(newY)`.
This would be a much weaker feature than is being proposed, in several
dimensions.
1. It doesn't scale to arbitrary classes; it's a record-specific hack.
Wh
The block is also special because there is an implicit return at the
end ? so i believe "return" should be disallowed inside the block, right ?
That's a good question; we can go in multiple directions with this. One
would be to simply interpret "return" as "return from the enclosing
method
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "amber-spec-experts"
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 2:44:51 PM
> Subject: "With" for records
> In
> [
> https://github.com/openjdk/amber-docs/blob/master/eg-drafts/reconstruction-records-and-classes.md
> |
> ht
In
https://github.com/openjdk/amber-docs/blob/master/eg-drafts/reconstruction-records-and-classes.md
we explore a generalized mechanism for `with` expressions, such as:
Point shadowPos = shape.position() with { x = 0 }
The document evaluates a general mechanism involving matched pairs of
