RFR:JDK-8198749 Translation of value constructors in classic constructor notation (original) (raw)

Remi Forax forax at univ-mlv.fr
Thu Jul 12 07:45:46 UTC 2018

----- Mail original -----

De: "John Rose" <john.r.rose at oracle.com> À: "Maurizio Cimadamore" <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> Cc: "valhalla-dev" <valhalla-dev at openjdk.java.net> Envoyé: Jeudi 12 Juillet 2018 02🔞05 Objet: Re: RFR:JDK-8198749 Translation of value constructors in classic constructor notation

[...]

(Along those lines, I also suspect that value class constructors should be allowed to return a value, which is the short-circuited result of the constructor. Thus, if the constructor decides that the client is really asking for a pre-existing value X, it can just say "return X" and that's what the client will get. If such a constructor says plain "return" with no value, or drops off of the end of the block, then of course the value implied by the current field settings—which must by DA before the return—is what the client gets. But I'm not pressing this thought too hard yet. I'm concentrating on "codes like class", more than on "look how values are so different from objects".)

I will prefer not too allow (value) class constructor to return a value, it's what factory method are for.

I think it's better to:

Rémi

More information about the valhalla-dev mailing list