rfc:code_free_constructor

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous 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,​ probably because the property declarations still looks like normal property declarations,​ they just occur in-line in the ctor.</​blockquote>​ 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,​ probably because the property declarations still looks like normal property declarations,​ they just occur in-line in the ctor.</​blockquote>​
-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'​s body, because you know exactly what's going on.
 ===== References ===== ===== References =====
  
  
rfc/code_free_constructor.txt · Last modified: 2019/01/29 12:17 by rjhdby