[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Problems with field initialization
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