Re: supporting the final keyword for properties
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The recent http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg59301.html
> discussion
> made me wonder why did we decide not supporting the final keywords for
> properties as it would provide an easy way for read-only attributes (const
> would be a better choice in performance wise, but then you can only set it
> in your declaration where no dynamic expression is allowed.)
>
> I would like it to work the same way as it does in java(
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-4.html#jls-4.12.4)
> eg.
> you can set the initial value either in the declaration or later on, but
> after it is set, you can't change it, trying to do that would create a
> recoverable fatal error (or throwing an exception which extends
> RuntimeException).
>
> What do you think? Would this be viable? Is there any still-present reason
> why we shouldn't support that?
I don't like this overloaded meaning of "final". "final" currently
means "cannot be overwritten by inheritance". This would add a second
meaning which would be somewhat similar to "const" (but only
somewhat).
Nikita
Thread (20 messages)