Records: supertype?

[Kevin Bourrillion]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 1:07 PM Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

>
> It sounds to me like nothing bad whatsoever will come from leaving it out.
>
>
> We lose out on some future flexibility to add new methods, which might
> amount to nothing, or might be a big deal.
>

Wouldn't we just introduce the type then once we needed it? It would be
awkward, but would it be impossible or inadvisable?



> The main thing we gain immediately is that we have a place to hang
> specification, such as the refined specification for `equals()`, or general
> constraints on record-ness, where there is at least some chance users will
> see it.
>

That is nice, but I think any tools that generate/show documentation ought
to do something useful as a special case for records even without the
supertype.



-- 
Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kevinb at google.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/attachments/20190611/154ac47f/attachment-0001.html>