Skip to content

Explicit backing fields #428

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 15 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Explicit backing fields #428

wants to merge 15 commits into from

Conversation

merfemor
Copy link
Contributor

@merfemor merfemor commented Jun 10, 2025

Only comment here about the document text itself. The discussion about the feature is done in #430.

lunakoly and others added 12 commits June 10, 2025 16:39
* Use-cases are orothogonalized (similar) use-cases are grouped together.
* Additional use-cases are explained to cover all the major pieces of the proposed design.
* Design is worked out in more details, with grammar and various restrictions more explicitly spelled out.
* This list of future enhancements is narrowed down to the ones that are feasible in the near future.
* Table of Contents is added for reference.
Co-authored-by: ilya-g <ilya.gorbunov@jetbrains.com>
The variable should be var to have setter
* Fix subtype -> supertype.
* Clarify the advantages of the new syntax of the backing property pattern.
* Clarify repeated allocations in Expose read-only view use-case.
* Fix Access field from outside of getter and setter use-cases, don't require explicit field declaration.
* Retrieve property delegate reference use-case added.
@merfemor merfemor force-pushed the explicit-backing-fields branch from 905148a to a49a9a3 Compare June 10, 2025 15:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants