- Original Message -
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Peter Levart"
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Sent: Dimanche 27 Juin 2021 22:01:21
> Subject: Re: [External] : Re: JEP 401 -- reflection and class literals
>>
>>
>> Seems like we are forced to re-use Class objects to hold this
>> additio
Seems like we are forced to re-use Class objects to hold this
additional info. Remi says that there should only be "primary" (ref
type) primitive class literals (Foo.class) and no (Foo.ref.class or
Foo.val.class) and that val type mirrors should be obtained by calling
a method (such as Fo
On 26/06/2021 17:41, Peter Levart wrote:
What I'm asking is this: why couldn't the following always hold (local
vars):
Foo.val v = ...
Foo.ref r = ...
assert v.getClass() == Foo.val.class;
assert r.getClass() == Foo.ref.class;
I knew this was a stupid question. Immediately after consideri
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Sent: Mercredi 23 Juin 2021 17:13:27
> Subject: JEP 401 -- reflection and class literals
> In working through the details of reflective support in JEP 401, I think we've
> fallen into a slight "false consistency" regarding class literals. (Th
