8 ms·
The author cites this to justify the need for Records: > Most Java objects set every field to be private and make all fields accessible only through accessor m
by fooyc 3y ago
The author cites this to justify the need for Records:
> Most Java objects set every field to be private and make all fields accessible only through accessor methods for reading and writing.
> Unfortunately, there are no language enforced conventions for defining accessors; you could give the getter for foo the name getBar, and it’ll still work fine, except for the fact that it would confuse anybody trying to access bar and not `foo'.
Scala supports pattern matching on objects implementing the `unapply` method.
Is this considered harmful? Why didn’t Java follow this route?
- wscp-dev 3y agoit's a matter of standardisation again. Java's standard is like C++; ponderous. The record pattern jep indicates in final footnotes that something like unapply may be in the works, so all hope is not lost.