> De: "Brian Goetz" <[email protected]>
> À: "Remi Forax" <[email protected]>, "amber-spec-experts"
> <[email protected]>
> Envoyé: Mardi 24 Mars 2020 22:06:07
> Objet: Re: Record component type can be an inner class of a record
> It is kind of weird, though, when Bar is not static, since you can't create a
> Bar without having a Foo in hand, and you can't create a Foo without a Bar.
> You
> could cheat and do this:
> Foo f = new Foo(null);
> Bar b = f.new Bar(...);
> Foo ff = new Foo(b);
> but I doubt anyone will find this technique useful for anything other than a
> puzzler...
I agree, it makes more sense if Bar is static
record Foo(Kind kind) {
enum Kind { ZOR, GLUB }
}
especially if it's a refactoring from
class Foo {
private final Kind kind;
enum Kind { ZOR, GLUB }
...
}
Rémi
> On 3/24/2020 4:57 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> a record component can use as type a type declared inside the record itself,
>> in term of scoping it's like if the record component is part of the internal
>> scope of the record.
>> record Foo(Bar bar) {
>> class Bar {
>> }
>> }
>> I think it's the right behaviour but i was not able to find any reference to
>> that in the spec.
>> regards,
>> Rémi
