On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:32 PM Dan Smith <daniel.sm...@oracle.com> wrote: > > On Sep 9, 2021, at 1:13 PM, Dan Heidinga <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... >
Do you want to tackle this on list or wait for the next EG meeting? If you have a model / syntax in mind, we can start to work through the implications. Otherwise, we can all pull out the bikeshed paint....
