Records: supertype?

Kevin Bourrillion kevinb at
Tue Jun 11 20:51:39 UTC 2019

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 1:07 PM Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at> wrote:

> It sounds to me like nothing bad whatsoever will come from leaving it out.
> We lose out on some future flexibility to add new methods, which might
> amount to nothing, or might be a big deal.

Wouldn't we just introduce the type then once we needed it? It would be
awkward, but would it be impossible or inadvisable?

> The main thing we gain immediately is that we have a place to hang
> specification, such as the refined specification for `equals()`, or general
> constraints on record-ness, where there is at least some chance users will
> see it.

That is nice, but I think any tools that generate/show documentation ought
to do something useful as a special case for records even without the

Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kevinb at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the amber-spec-experts mailing list