Updated Draft specs for JEP 359 (Records)

Maurizio Cimadamore maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com
Thu Oct 31 14:40:30 UTC 2019

Sorry, I think I was put off tracks by this:

"The body of the canonical constructor must not contain a return 
statement (14.17)."

Which appears on both compact and non-compact forms. I think non-compact 
constructors are just... constructors, so no additional rule/restriction 
should apply there?


On 31/10/2019 14:29, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
> Moreover, a deeper question: should we leave the magic 
> auto-initialization of fields only for the compact form? That way, you 
> would have a _new_ linguistic form, with _new_ properties, whereas old 
> forms (e.g. a constructor with parameters) will have same rules as 
> before (can have returns, must initialize fields explicitly). I think 
> that, from a pedagogical aspect, that would be preferrable.

More information about the amber-spec-experts mailing list