On Aug 12, 2020, at 4:28 PM, Remi Forax <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I know that you have consider something like this, but i prefer making the > deconstructor a method returning a tuple at Java level, to be closer to the > JVM level. > So a syntax more like > class Point { > int x; > int y; > > (int x, int y) deconstructor { > return (this.x, this.y); > } > } > > Conceptually, it's also more like the reverse of a constructor, a constructor > takes the values from the stack to move them to the heap, a desconstructor > takes the value from the heap and move them to the stack.
To be closer to the JVM level we should number our variables, not name them. That is, if being closer to the JVM level were so important as to prefer positional notations to name-based notations. One reason to avoid tuples is we’d have to reify them more thoroughly in the language, and that seems like busy-work. The more important reason to avoid tuples is they don’t have named components, and the stuff we are looking at these days with records, constructors, and deconstructors is *all about names*. — John
