brian.goetz at oracle.com
Tue Jun 11 21:51:54 UTC 2019
> Of course, `AbstractRecord` is wide open. The main problem I see with
> that name is that it will be weird if we end up allowing users to
> write their own abstract records.
Which may well happen someday. (Which also makes giving Record an
F-bounded type parameter a little more dodgy.)
> (It's /slightly/ weird to have it named "*Record" when it /is not a
> record/ but it's already the case that Enum is not an enum, so <meh>.)
> I guess I would lean toward just using the straightforward name `Record`.
Yeah, that seems the most straightforward choice. Along with the same
rule we have for Enum, where it cannot be extended by ordinary classes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the amber-spec-experts