[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Problems with field initialization

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Michael Sperber wrote:

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?

Perhaps another keyword clause

  (constructor <expression>)

which can be left out for the default constructor.