tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175266939384385294.post4571999915543027459..comments2023-10-21T05:51:00.709-07:00Comments on (within parens...): NEW structure and class constructor handling?Marco Antoniottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06513735748852658637noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175266939384385294.post-11872604843981008792011-02-25T01:29:47.128-08:002011-02-25T01:29:47.128-08:00It would definitively be optional. (CLASS c) is i...It would definitively be optional. <i>(CLASS c)</i> is introduced only for symmetry with <i>(STRUCT s)</i>. You could still use the constructor recording machinery and use (NEW structure-class ...) syntax.<br /><br />Apart from that, there are uses for <i>:constructor</i> that <b>are</b> very useful. I'll blog about it.<br /><br />(cheers)Marco Antoniottihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06513735748852658637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175266939384385294.post-44199015821479436762011-02-24T19:29:37.068-08:002011-02-24T19:29:37.068-08:00I liked the old syntax better -- it was more succi...I liked the old syntax better -- it was more succinct. Are you saying this is an alternate syntax, or the old syntax is being replaced?<br /><br />Since I never use the :constructor option this change doesn't address my issues, which is, primarily, cleaner code.<br /><br />But I would get on board if it were optional. I prefer designing for the most common 80% and not let the other 20% unduly influence the common use cases.<br />Just my 2 cents.vaneklhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00728653010839416298noreply@blogger.com