Andre van Tonder <xxxxxx@now.het.brown.edu> writes:

Andre van Tonder <xxxxxx@now.het.brown.edu> writes:

> "If the custom field initialization were omitted, it would still be possible to
> perform custom initialization by writing a separate constructor procedure, which
> would wrap a record type's actual constructor.
> [...]
> I have not read the reference implementations in detail, but presumably they
> construct the syntactic layer on top of the procedural substrate.  Yet the
> procedural substrate makes no reference to a custom constructor.  Doesn't this
> contradict the last line above by showing that you can build a layer that allows
> extensions with access to custom constructors from a layer that doesn't store
> custom constructors?

Yes, but you misunderstand the sentence in the draft: It's not saying

"If ..., it would still be possible to <something>.  However, we want
to make <something> impossible."

Instead, the sentence is trying to say: "If the construction procedure
was defined outside the DEFINE-TYPE, it wouldn't be available through
the type defined by DEFINE-TYPE, and we couldn't use it, say, through
the PARENT clause."

Would this be a better wording?

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla