Riffing on the "inline" term and tying things back to the flattenable discussions - what about using "flat" as the keyword?
flat class Foo { }
flat record R (int i);
--Dan
----- Original message -----
From: Maurizio Cimadamore <[email protected]>
Sent by: "valhalla-spec-experts" <[email protected]>
To: Brian Goetz <[email protected]>, Doug Lea <[email protected]>
Cc: valhalla-spec-experts <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: generic specialization design discussion
Date: Tue, Apr 9, 2019 4:10 PM
On 09/04/2019 18:04, Brian Goetz wrote:
> In addition to liking the sound of it, I like that it is more “modifer-y” than “value”, meaning that it could conceivably be applied to other entities:
>
> inline record R(int a);
>
> inline enum Foo { A, B };
>
I like it too - especially because in C/C++ "inline" doesn't actually
_force_ the compiler to do anything. So, I like the hint-y nature of
this keyword and I think it brings front & center what this feature is
about in a way that 'value' never really did (users asking about the
difference between records and values is, I think, a proof of that
particular failure).
Maurizio
