On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Michael Sperber wrote:

>
> Andre van Tonder <xxxxxx@now.het.brown.edu> writes:
>
>>  Instead of having a separate <init expression> for each field, one could
>>  simply have an <expression> for the constructor, which should evaluate to a
>>  procedure that returns the computed fields (using VALUES, for example).
>
> This might be a suitable alternative if it could fit into the
> syntactic layer in such a way as to provide a simple way of
> defaulting, at least for the case where I just want the constructor
> arguments to go into the corresponding fields.  Do you have
> suggestions on how that might look?

Perhaps another keyword clause

   (constructor <expression>)

which can be left out for the default constructor.

Cheers
Andre