<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAKDaPBc5rx8A7aEWw3JtDUu0O=ga1YVT_h5atYegQXcXzcUT2Q@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I see, thanks. What I was missing is that I thought a
"pattern" method cannot exist without its pair. And that
explains why wasn't the short "inverse" syntax chosen:
Because the fact that the "pattern" method has the same name
/ types is just a coincidence from the point of view of the
compiler (hopefully I'm not misunderstanding something
again).</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes. Pairs of ctor/dtor (and similar for methods) are an extremely
useful *API structuring mechanism*, but they are not required by the
language. <br>
<br>
The language will likely provide some help in pairing them up, for
use in contexts like withers and serialization, but that's it.
Maybe this help will be implicit (same name + same arity + same
parameter/binding types + same parameter/binding names means they
are paired), maybe it will be explicit (some sort of "invertible"
modifier); we are working through use cases now to figure this out.
But we want pairing / invertibility to be something that developers
choose. <br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>