rfc:code_free_constructor
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
rfc:code_free_constructor [2019/01/29 12:13] – rjhdby | rfc:code_free_constructor [2019/01/29 12:17] (current) – rjhdby | ||
---|---|---|---|
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. IMHO this syntax make behavior more strict. No need to |
+ | read constructor' | ||
===== References ===== | ===== References ===== | ||
rfc/code_free_constructor.1548764009.txt.gz · Last modified: 2019/01/29 12:13 by rjhdby