Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Should we have several classes for value setter definitions? #55

Open
lucaswerkmeister opened this issue Aug 15, 2014 · 3 comments
Open
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@lucaswerkmeister
Copy link
Member

We could have either

  • ValueSetterDefinition(LIdentifier name, Block|LazySpecifier definition, Annotations annotations)

or something like

  • AnyValueSetterDefinition(Block|LazySpecifier definition) (abstract)
    • ValueSetterDefinition(LIdentifier name, Block definition, Annotations annotations)
    • ValueSetterShortcutDefinition(LIdentifier name, LazySpecifier definition, Annotations annotations)

Which one is better?

@lucaswerkmeister
Copy link
Member Author

I’ll implement the first variant for now, since I’m not sure if the added complexity of the second one is worth it. Leaving the issue open though.

@lucaswerkmeister
Copy link
Member Author

We’ll keep the first variant for now. ceylon.ast can, by its nature, break compatibility between language releases anyway, so I’m not too concerned about potentially making this change after the initial release.

@gavinking
Copy link
Member

I think the first variation is much better. In general, => ... vs `{ ... } is a mere syntactic distinction with no real semantic significance.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants