On 15 Dec 2021, at 10:42, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
…
The main problem I think we can't escape is that we'll still need some
word
that means only the eight predefined types. (For the sake of argument
let's
assume we can pick one and lean hard on it, whether that's
"predefined",
"built-in", "e
On 15 Dec 2021, at 15:06, Brian Goetz wrote:
It took us a while to unravel this one, but I think we did.
… What this says is that tearing/non-tearing is a property of
reference-vs-primitive-ness; accessing a (fat) value through a
reference gives you *more guarantees* than accessing it directly
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 12:10 PM Dan Smith wrote:
Yes, this is a good list. Add to it:
> - They are named with a lower-case keyword
> - They exclusively get to use special operators (for now)
>
(Well that parenthetical turns my blood cold)
Leaning away from that though: I'm most worried abou
It took us a while to unravel this one, but I think we did.
The JMM says that loads and stores of references, and of
32-bit-and-smaller primitive values, are atomic with respect to other
loads and stores of the same variable. This means that you'll see a
valid value, though it could be a stal
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 11:17 AM Brian Goetz wrote:
> Background: the textbook definition of "primitive" is centered on their
> nature of being elements-not-molecules, and I see no dispute about it.
> Also, there's no disputing the fact that we're allowed to adopt a different
> meaning if we so c
On Dec 15, 2021, at 12:17 PM, Brian Goetz
mailto:brian.go...@oracle.com>> wrote:
The main problem I think we can't escape is that we'll still need some word
that means only the eight predefined types. (For the sake of argument let's
assume we can pick one and lean hard on it, whether that's "pr
Background: the textbook definition of "primitive" is centered on
their nature of being elements-not-molecules, and I see no dispute
about it. Also, there's no disputing the fact that we're allowed to
adopt a different meaning if we so choose. So that's not even the
fatal flaw.
Yes, that's
(Okay, so we're doing this)
I think the rename to "primitive classes" happened during my outage last
year. When I came back I made the decision to like it.
Since then, I've found that in my explanatory model I'm fighting against it
constantly. I think it may actually be fatally flawed.
The point
EG Zoom meeting today at 5pm UTC (9am PDT, 12pm EDT).
Possible topics:
"JEP update: Value Objects": discussed some details about inferred
superinterfaces, including impact on JVMTI
"basic conceptual model": Kevin shared his notes describing key Java
programming model concepts, in anticipation
