Default value for date/time

[Vitaly Davidovich]

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 8:48 PM John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:

> On May 8, 2018, at 5:37 PM, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne at joda.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 9 May 2018 at 01:13, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:
> >>> I worry that while the key principle has got the project a long way,
> >>> it is too hard line when it comes to some potential value types -
> >>> Currency or Money being other examples where a default is silly, but
> >>> they are otherwise fully value-like.
> >>
> >> Any value type measuring a scaled amount is going to have a
> >> zero right?  That's the default, probably.  It's affine amounts
> >> like times that don't have a good default.
> >
> > Whats the default Currency? USD is a not an acceptable answer. Money
> > is the same as it can't exist without a currency.
> >
> > What about a Distance object? Is it measured in Miles or Kilometers by
> default?
>
> Thanks, I get it now.
>
> >
> >> class ObserveTheDefault {
> >>   LocalDateValue x;
> >>   LocalDateValue[] a = new LocalDateValue[1];
> >>   void test() {
> >>     System.out.println(x);
> >>     assert(LocalDateValue.default.equals(x));
> >>     System.out.println(a[0]);
> >>     assert(LocalDateValue.default.equals(a[0]));
> >>   }
> >>   public static void main(String… av) { new ObserveTheDefault().test();
> }
> >> }
> >
> > My suggestion was that code does not compile as `LocalDateValue x`
> > wasn't assigned in the constructor (not "works like an int", but then
> > its not like an int). Anything else risks allowing a "null-like"
> > LocalDate to escape and head off causing havoc to real code - just
> > like null does...
> >
> > Anyway, I'm not expecting firm/final answers right now - value types
> > has too far to go. Consider my points to be concerns that might be
> > worth considering.
>
> We'll certainly come back around to this when we've booted up
> the pure "works like an int".  You are asking for a certain kind of
> mashup between objects and primitives, which is understandable,
> but we won't be providing every conceivable point on the spectrum
> between objects and primitives (too hard).  That's why I keep talking
> about trade-offs.  OTOH, maybe what you are asking for is such
> a sweet spot that we'll end up having to do it.  Can't tell right now,
> but… don't hold your breath.  "works like an int" is difficult all by
> itself.

C# has had the same behavior since inception - one cannot provide a default
ctor for value types.  They also have DateTime as a struct, with the
default being 1/1/0001 midnight.  And of course the same debates about
allowing user-provided defaults were had :).

Microsoft actually considered allowing user-provided default ctors for
structs for C# 6 (IIRC) but backed away for compatibility reasons.  Java,
however, doesn’t have that compatibility concern (yet).  What’s the reason
to not allow user specified default construction for value types? Sure,
it’ll be a performance “hit” but this is user opt-in.  But it would allow
users to avoid a new class of bugs.

>
>
> — John

-- 
Sent from my phone