Default method survey results

David Holmes david.holmes at
Fri Aug 17 04:46:30 PDT 2012

On 17/08/2012 9:11 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
> On 17/08/12 11:17, David Holmes wrote:
>>>> Jump forward to 2012 and we have a vibrant community and when people
>>>> are presented with new language proposals they get to evaluate them
>>>> and express their views. One such view held by a number (myself
>>>> included) is that the default keyword is simply superfluous. Arguing
>>>> that default belongs because we already another superfluous keyword is
>>>> just unsound reasoning. Two wrongs don't make a right.
>>> I think you misread what I've said. In my view it's not 'two wrongs', as
>>> I don't think 'abstract' should be removed. So, for me it's more like
>>> 'two rights make a right' ;-)
>> Well you said "there already is a place where you have to specify a
>> keyword where the compiler could obviously infer one for you" - which
>> indicates the keyword is unnecessary. That's the wrongness to me, and
>> you now want two of them.
> The same reasoning could be applied to variable types then - since the
> compiler could infer them, it indicates they are useless. Sorry, but I
> don't buy the argument 'since the compiler can infer XYZ, we don't need
> XYZ'. To the extreme it will lead to cryptic code (at best).

I don't buy it either and I wasn't trying to sell it as a general 
apply-to-everything argument. We are talking about keywords not typing.


More information about the lambda-dev mailing list