On Sep 9, 2021, at 1:13 PM, Dan Heidinga <heidi...@redhat.com<mailto:heidi...@redhat.com>> wrote:
but to keep the door open to having both factories and constructors in identity classes, should we use a different syntax for factories in primitive classes now? That way factories would be "spelled" consistently between primitive and identity classes. Doing so diminishes the "codes like a class" story but leaves the door open for more compatibility in the future. Enthusiastic +1. I don't really *want* to do that, but if we think that's where we're headed, it is pretty weird that, say, a factory declaration in an Java interface declaration looks completely different from a factory declaration in a Java primitive class declaration. Or maybe both styles of declaration are supported by primitive classes? And does reflection treat them differently, too? Not sure if this leads anywhere good, but I want to do a bit of thinking through the implications...
