Contructors and Destructors about eo

[yegor256]

@mdbs99 my initial idea was to use ctor and dtor. Let's collect some opinions and I will make changes.

[fabriciofx]

@mdbs99 I agree. constructor and destructor are better names.

[nqafield]

@mdbs99 Sure. And I guess it would be just as easy to find if it was always first. Just a preference I guess.

[gukoff]

Do we need an explicit primary constructor? It seems to be the same all the time - something which accepts all the attributes and sets them as-is.

@gukoff I don't. What I want is that compiler not check if the "primary ctor" was wrote at the end. Just that.

No, I've addressed the concept, not your particular issue :)

Speaking of languages like Java, the requirement for a primary constructor to be written at the end looks logical. It reminds me of the common rule of putting private below public. The secondary constructors must be public; otherwise, they are useless. A primary constructor is sometimes public just to be used in unit testing and serves as a basis for the secondary ones.

[mdbs99]

...a primary constructor to be written at the end looks logical.

@gukoff I don't see any logica here sorry. Anyway...
if I can put the constructors and methods in the sequence I want, without the compiler interfering, it will just be a matter of style. That just all I need.

[krzysiekpiasecki]

Constructors must be listed after attributes. The primary constructor must be the last one. The destructor, if it is present, goes right after the primary constructor.

We're talking about inline or temporal dependencies as a bad pratice, but we should write ctors dtors attrs in a legal order.

[eugene-nikolaev]

+1 for ctor/dtor

[DronMDF]

ctor/dtor is preferred to me. Use object name as ctor/dtor is not obviously. Especially given the specialization.

Question:

object shape as Shape: ...
object rectangle extend shape:

rectangle can public shape ctor? Or base class ctor is private?

Other example:

object error as Error:
    ctor(String: what):...
object logic_error extend error:
    // Need ctor?

Hm... This extend does not make sense with some type of object. Maybe parent ctor need only for private use.

[mdbs99]

@DronMDF there is no inheritance for Objects, just specialization for Types.

[DronMDF]

Yep, sorry. extend only for types. Ok.

[nqafield]

Why the last one? The primary has to be the first, on top.

@mdbs99 Yegor wrote about this here.

[mdbs99]

@pa9ey yes, I know, and agree with him — I have done this ~2 years before this article.
I guess you didn't understand me right:

Why the last one? The primary has to be the first, on top.

I meant: If the compiler will check the precedence, the primary ctor should be the first wrote in the code.

[gukoff]

Do we need an explicit primary constructor? It seems to be the same all the time - something which accepts all the attributes and sets them as-is.

[nqafield]

@mdbs99 I understood you. You were asking, Why the last one? Yegor addresses that very question in the article. I wasn't suggesting you should agree with it, nor that I do (or don't) - I was simply pointing out that he addresses your question, the one that I quoted.

[nqafield]

@gukoff Good point.

[mdbs99]

@gukoff I don't. What I want is that compiler not check if the "primary ctor" was wrote at the end. Just that.

@pa9ey I'm sorry. I read the article again:
...a primary constructor, and it will always be easy to find because it stays below all secondary constructors.
Now I understood what you meant. But I disagree of Yegor in that case.

[mdbs99]

So @yegor256, ctor and dtor won?

[mdbs99]

@yegor256 ctor and dtor won?
Can I close this issue?

[monsieurluge]

+1 for constructor & destructor (readability in mind)

[gukoff]

Guys, it isn't going to be written in stone :) For the time being, both ctor and constructor are fine.

[mdbs99]

@gukoff I agree with you.
So as @yegor256 didn't tell anything all these days and we've already voted, I'll finish this issue and, after, change the README if nobody does.

[yegor256]

@mdbs99 please submit a pull request for ctor and dtor. thanks!