On Sep 9, 2021, at 1:13 PM, Dan Heidinga
mailto:heidi...@redhat.com>> wrote:
but to keep the door open to having both factories and
constructors in identity classes, should we use a different syntax for
factories in primitive classes now? That way factories would be
"spelled" consistently
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 2:00 PM Dan Smith wrote:
>
> To clarify a bit that I left out: this discussion assumes a pretty fixed JVM
> feature: a factory method is a static method with a special name, invoked via
> invokestatic, and possibly subject to certain constraints about the
>
To clarify a bit that I left out: this discussion assumes a pretty fixed JVM
feature: a factory method is a static method with a special name, invoked via
invokestatic, and possibly subject to certain constraints about the
descriptor/enclosing class. I'm not proposing any changes to that basic
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:24 AM Dan Smith wrote:
>
> JEP 401 includes special JVM factory methods, spelled (or,
> alternatively, with a non-void return), which are needed as a
> standardized way to encode the Java language's primitive class constructors.
>
> We have a lot of flexibility in
JEP 401 includes special JVM factory methods, spelled (or, alternatively,
with a non-void return), which are needed as a standardized way to
encode the Java language's primitive class constructors.
We have a lot of flexibility in how much we restrict use of these methods. Too
many
