Talking it through with Dan, I think the best thing for the JLS is to avoid
issues of `this` etc and simply state:
It is a compile-time error to assign to the instance fields of the
record class in the body of the compact constructor.
Thoughts?
Gavin
> On 27 Apr 2020, at 23:54, Remi Forax <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Brian Goetz" <[email protected]>
>> À: "daniel smith" <[email protected]>, "John Rose"
>> <[email protected]>
>> Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <[email protected]>
>> Envoyé: Mardi 28 Avril 2020 00:37:05
>> Objet: Re: Possible records tweak
>
>>>> So maybe `super` is DA but `this` is DU, just like in the code
>>>> before the super-constructor call. (I’m abusing the terms DA/DU
>>>> like Brian is, and you call out, but they are close to correct.)
>>> I think this means I can't call inherited method 'getParentWidget()' or some
>>> static utility 'computeWidgetOfParent(this)' method (e.g.,
>>> 'identityHashCode(this)'). I *can* call 'super.getParentWidget()'.
>>
>> Except records only inherit from Record, which has no non-inherited
>> instance methods.
>
> super.wait(), etc should work
>
> Rémi
>
