rfc:code_free_constructor
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
rfc:code_free_constructor [2019/01/29 12:10] – rjhdby | rfc:code_free_constructor [2019/01/29 12:17] (current) – rjhdby | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
* Status: draft | * Status: draft | ||
* First Published at: https:// | * First Published at: https:// | ||
- | * ML thread: | + | * ML thread: |
===== Changelog ===== | ===== Changelog ===== | ||
Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
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. |
- | + | read constructor' | |
- | **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.1548763829.txt.gz · Last modified: 2019/01/29 12:10 by rjhdby