> De: "Guy Steele" <guy.ste...@oracle.com> > À: "Kevin Bourrillion" <kev...@google.com> > Cc: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr>, "amber-spec-experts" > <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Avril 2019 20:43:12 > Objet: Re: records are dead long live to ...
>> On Apr 12, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Kevin Bourrillion < [ mailto:kev...@google.com | >> kev...@google.com ] > wrote: >> 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. > Good observation. And also note that Java `record` is to C `struct` as Java > `enum` is to C `enum`. Apart from the fact that records are now immutable. I had no issue with the previous incarnation of record to be named record, it was even a great name, record is the Pascal equivalent of the C struct, i've seen it as a kind of homage given that i believe the only other thing that Java has from Pascal is its method calling convention. Rémi
