rfc:code_free_constructor
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | Last revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
| rfc:code_free_constructor [2019/01/29 12:10] – rjhdby | rfc:code_free_constructor [2019/01/29 12:13] – rjhdby | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| * Status: draft | * Status: draft | ||
| * First Published at: https:// | * First Published at: https:// | ||
| - | * ML thread: | + | * ML thread: |
| ===== Changelog ===== | ===== Changelog ===== | ||
| Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
| I think that *if* we want to add some kind of sugar of this type, then I'd strongly prefer the syntax used by Hack than the one proposed here. It makes a lot more sense to me intuitively, | I think that *if* we want to add some kind of sugar of this type, then I'd strongly prefer the syntax used by Hack than the one proposed here. It makes a lot more sense to me intuitively, | ||
| A matter of habit and documentation. There is a lot of really strange and magical behavior in the language. It seems to me that the proposed concept is quite simple and transparent for understanding. | A matter of habit and documentation. There is a lot of really strange and magical behavior in the language. It seems to me that the proposed concept is quite simple and transparent for understanding. | ||
| - | |||
| - | **Dan Ackroyd**< | ||
| - | looking at solving it with a preprocessor first: | ||
| - | |||
| - | https:// | ||
| - | Not sure if I understood the advice correctly. | ||
| ===== References ===== | ===== References ===== | ||
rfc/code_free_constructor.txt · Last modified: 2019/01/29 12:17 by rjhdby