> Jeroen Frijters wrote: > The reference implementation of VMClass will not have any instance > members, but VMs might choose to add instance state. However, after > thinking about it some more, I think it would be better to just add an > instance member to Class, called vmState (or whatever) of type Object. > That is more flexible (at the cost of additional downcasts). > > The only overhead for you is the unused vmState reference field in each > Class instance.
That sounds like a better general design. But to be frank we're not likely to use Class/VMClass in this way. Our Class already requires an "opaque" reference to a VM internal "type mirror", and we chose our own strategy for populating the reflective information for a Class instance. On top of that there's the static initializer in Class that we can't have. Hence we'll most likely stick with providing our own version of java.lang.Class. David Holmes _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
