Re: Problems with field initialization

[Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andre van Tonder <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>  Instead of having a separate <init expression> for each field, one could
>  simply have an <expression> for the constructor, which should evaluate to a
>  procedure that returns the computed fields (using VALUES, for example).

This might be a suitable alternative if it could fit into the
syntactic layer in such a way as to provide a simple way of
defaulting, at least for the case where I just want the constructor
arguments to go into the corresponding fields.  Do you have
suggestions on how that might look?

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla