Basic classes: use cases, struct literals, struct types, and future work #561
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
github-actions
bot
added
the
proposal rfc
Merged
geoffromer
reviewed
Aug 5, 2021
zygoloid
reviewed
Aug 6, 2021
This was referenced Aug 6, 2021
Merged
chandlerc
approved these changes
Aug 7, 2021
| in line with avoiding global variables more generally. Carbon may need some | ||
| support in this area, though, for parity with and migration from C++. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Computed properties |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure. I just think we'll also want to consider non-computed properties. Anyways, no need to sweat the details of this section I think.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>
github-actions
bot
added
proposal accepted
zygoloid
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 28, 2021
… (#699) This supports both struct type literals, `{.x: i32, .y: i32}`, and struct value literals, `{.x = 3, .y = 4}`. The degenerate case of `{}` is treated as a struct value literal, with the expectation that an empty struct value has the same type/value duality as an empty tuple value.
chandlerc
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2022
…ork (#561) This proposal defines the very basics of `class` types, primarily focused on: - use cases including: data classes, encapsulated types, inheritance with and without `virtual`, interfaces as base classes, and mixins for code reuse; - anonymous data types for called _structural data classes_ or _struct types_. Struct literals are used to initialize class values and ad-hoc parameter and return types with named components; and - future work, including the provisional syntax already in use for features that have not been decided. The intent is to both make some small incremental progress and get agreement on direction. As such it doesn't include things like nominal types, methods, access control, inheritance, etc. It proposes this struct type and literal syntax: ``` var p: {.x: Int, .y: Int} = {.x = 0, .y = 1}; ``` Note that it uses commas (`,`) between fields instead of semicolons (`;`), and no introducer for types or literal values. Incorporates decisions from #665 , #653 , #651 Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>
chandlerc
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2022
… (#699) This supports both struct type literals, `{.x: i32, .y: i32}`, and struct value literals, `{.x = 3, .y = 4}`. The degenerate case of `{}` is treated as a struct value literal, with the expectation that an empty struct value has the same type/value duality as an empty tuple value.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This proposal defines the very basics of
classtypes, primarily focused on:virtual, interfaces as base classes, and mixins for code reuse;The intent is to both make some small incremental progress and get agreement on direction. As such it doesn't include things like nominal types, methods, access control, inheritance, etc.
It proposes this struct type and literal syntax:
Note that it uses commas (
,) between fields instead of semicolons (;), and no introducer for types or literal values.Incorporates decisions from #665 , #653 , #651