Package Private Record Fields

[Mateusz Romanowski]

OK, here you go.

You can put the static method directly on the record, which is better style
as far as I am concerned:
---
package ex;
import static java.lang.Math.*;
public final record Point(double x, double y) {
  public static double distance(Point a, Point b) {
    return sqrt(pow(b.x - a.x, 2) + pow(b.y - a.y, 2));
  }
}
---

Or, you can put record inside the utility class:
---
package ex;

import static java.lang.Math.*;

public class Maths {
  record Point(int x, int y) { }

  public static double distance(Point a, Point b) {
    return sqrt(pow(b.x - a.x, 2) + pow(b.y - a.y, 2));
  }
}
---

/Mateusz


On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 8:51 PM August Nagro <augustnagro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mateusz,
>
> How would that improve the readability? Can you share an example?
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 3:45 PM Mateusz Romanowski <
> romanowski.mateusz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi August,
>> Have you considered putting "friend" methods in the same source file, and
>> therefore using nest-based access control?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mateusz
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 28, 2020, August Nagro <augustnagro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I'm enjoying using the Records preview so far.
>> >
>> > One thing I've noticed is that classes in the same package as the Record
>> > are likely to be heavy users of its public accessor methods, and that
>> the
>> > `()` can inhibit readability. For example,
>> >
>> > org/example/Point.java
>> > record Point(double x, double y) {}
>> >
>> > org/example/MathFunctions.java:
>> > import static java.lang.Math.*;
>> >
>> > class MathFunctions {
>> >   public static double distance(Point a, Point b) {
>> >     return sqrt(pow(b.x() - a.x(), 2) + pow(b.y() - a.x(), 2));
>> >   }
>> > }
>> >
>> > It would be nice to be able to write:
>> >
>> > class MathFunctions {
>> >   public static double distance(Point a, Point b) {
>> >     return sqrt(pow(b.x - a.x, 2) + pow(b.y - a.x, 2));
>> >   }
>> > }
>> >
>> > I understand the reason for not making them public.. the accessor
>> methods
>> > are good API design. But giving Record fields the default modifier
>> wouldn't
>> > change this.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > August
>> >
>
>