> On Aug 13, 2020, at 9:06 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> . . .
> ok, let's take a step back because i think the current proposal has fall in a
> kind of local maximum in term of design.
>
> We want a destructor, a destructor is a method that returns a list of values
> the same way a constructor takes a list of parameters.
> The way to represent that list of value is to use a record.
While I agree that this sort of approach can be made to work, I have to say it
is philosophically puzzling to say that the way to destruct (or deconstruct) an
object is to take values from the relevant fields and then package them up in
some other object! Superficially, at least, it seems like this approach leads
to an infinite regress.
Whereas I can more easily understand that the job of
public deconstructor Point(int x, int y) {
x = this.x;
y = this.y;
}
is to take values out of the object “this” and put them into separate
_variables_, not a new object. (Granted, these variables have a somewhat new
and mysterious existence and character.)
