You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The description of deconstruction is not complete:
The grammar production needs to express both initialization and assignment on the LHS of a deconstruction.
The RHS of a deconstruction could be any type that supports deconstruction (tuple or any type with a candidate accessible Deconstruct method.) That isn't specified in the grammar.
The scope and definite assignment state of the destination of a deconstruction must be specified.
Can deconstruction be a compound assignment? (Stated another way, what is the type of a deconstruction assignment expression?
The example that shows a Deconstruct method needs to be replaced by specification language for the rules of a Deconstruct method.
Deconstruction is mentioned in the same breath as assignment. If deconstruction can only occur on the LHS of a (simple?, compound?) assignment, should deconstruction be covered under assignment rather than in its own section? If the two are in separate sections, the expression grammar needs to have the new production, tuple_deconstruction_expression, plugged into it. Support for tuple deconstruction could be the beginning of a more general pattern support mechanism to come later. If that is the case, perhaps we should admit that and start using pattern-related terminology and organization. If so, that suggests tuple deconstruction should be separate from the assignment operator, in a (pre-)patterns section that will be expanded over future spec versions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The description of deconstruction is not complete:
Deconstruct
method.) That isn't specified in the grammar.Deconstruct
method needs to be replaced by specification language for the rules of a Deconstruct method.Deconstruction is mentioned in the same breath as assignment. If deconstruction can only occur on the LHS of a (simple?, compound?) assignment, should deconstruction be covered under assignment rather than in its own section? If the two are in separate sections, the expression grammar needs to have the new production, tuple_deconstruction_expression, plugged into it. Support for tuple deconstruction could be the beginning of a more general pattern support mechanism to come later. If that is the case, perhaps we should admit that and start using pattern-related terminology and organization. If so, that suggests tuple deconstruction should be separate from the assignment operator, in a (pre-)patterns section that will be expanded over future spec versions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: