> De: "Kevin Bourrillion" <kev...@google.com> > À: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> > Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Avril 2019 20:17:12 > Objet: Re: records are dead long live to ...
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:34 AM Remi Forax < [ mailto:fo...@univ-mlv.fr | > fo...@univ-mlv.fr ] > wrote: >> At the end of section "Why not "just" do tuples ?", you have this gem, >> "A good starting point for thinking about records is that they are nominal >> tuples." > That is *a* starting point, but I think a barely useful one. Records have > semantics, which makes them *worlds* different from tuples. Methods, > supertypes, validation, specification... I think it's fair to say that all a > record holds is a "tuple", but it's so much more. Record is to tuple as enum > is > to int. Hi Kevin, I find interesting the example you have chosen, because you can interpret it as enum in C vs enum in Java, enum in C have no method, no supertype, etc but we still have kept the name "enum" for the equivalent in Java. In my opinion, the feature we have is more similar to a named tuple than a record, i fully agree that it's a named tuple on steroid, but as i said it's not dissimilar to the relation between an enum in C and an enum in Java. Rémi
