maxmustermann/csharplang
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update LDM-2020-05-27.md (#3875)

Browse source 
Replaced incorrect structs with classes in: "less far behind" than structs in record features
This commit is contained in:
NetMage 2020-09-10 21:56:10 -04:00 committed by GitHub
parent 1b48340ac8
commit 8cb28ad560
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
meetings/2020/LDM-2020-05-27.md
View file

@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ record struct Point(int X, int Y);
On the other hand, we could improve the performance of equality, completely separate from records.
For instance, the compiler could add equality methods if they are not present. We also do not necessarily
need to address structs first. Since structs already have many features of records they are, in a sense,
"less far behind" than structs in record features. It makes sense to concentrate first on classes and
"less far behind" than classes in record features. It makes sense to concentrate first on classes and
consider augmentations for structs in a future update.
So to return to the original question, we have to decide if we want to move forward with option (2), which