> "SoV-3: constructor questions": Dan asked about validation for and
> methods. Answer: JVM doesn't care about methods in abstract
> classes, the rules about methods still uncertain.
>
> On the question of JVM validation of methods, I’m in favor of as few
> rules as possible, ideally treati
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 4:25 AM Brian Goetz wrote:
I think this is a useful exercise anyway, though; we have stumbled over
> type-vs-class in a lot of places already with respect to B3, and int has
> similar problems; most uses of `int` are types, but there's also
> `int.class`, which means ... s
And how does that differ from Point.class / Point.ref.class /
Point.class.noNotThatClassTheOtherClass() ?
I realize you're not necessarily asking that question in this thread,
but I want to walk through how I would respond to it anyway.
First here is what I already take to be tr
I need to do more work and have something concrete to propose before engaging
too deeply in this discussion, but:
> On Feb 9, 2022, at 11:32 AM, John Rose wrote:
>
> Regarding reflection, I think it would be OK to surface all of the
> methods (of whatever signature) on the getConstructors lis
> On Feb 9, 2022, at 2:50 PM, Frederic Parain
> wrote:
>
> There's a weird case that seems to be allowed by the Value Objects JVMS draft:
>
> An abstract class can declare non-static fields, which means it won't
> have the ACC_PERMITS_VALUE flag set, but also declare that it implements
> the Va
