Hi,
The current plan for `primitive class Foo` -- to call the value type `Foo`
and the reference type `Foo.ref` -- is causing a few problems that I think
are unnecessary. I've felt for a while now that we are favoring the wrong
default. We should let `Foo` be the reference type and require `Foo.va
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 11:58 AM Brian Goetz wrote:
I think what is missing from our presentation — and likely key to
> succeeding — is how to describe “compound value” in a way that feels like a
> thing.
>
Well, a `double` is already a compound value that feels like a thing. Java
just hides the
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 6:23 PM Remi Forax wrote:
As we discussed earlier, there are two approaches, one is to say that
> instance of class = object | value
> the other is to say that
> instance of class = object = reference object | immediate object
>
> I prefer the later to the former, bec
I agree totally, the former are semantic properties and the latter is a side
effect of representation. But that doesn’t help us much, because if people
assume that these have the same finial field safety / integrity properties as
reference objects, they will be in for a painful surprise. So th
> From: "Remi Forax"
> To: "Kevin Bourrillion"
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 12:23:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Objects vs. values, the continuation
>> From: "Kevin Bourrillion"
>> To: "valhalla-spec-experts"
>> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 12:38:12 AM
>> Subject: Obj
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Kevin Bourrillion"
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 5:57:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Objects vs. values, the continuation
> Overall I find a lot to like about this presentation. I’m still a little iffy
> about whether we can redefine the letters
> From: "Kevin Bourrillion"
> To: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 12:38:12 AM
> Subject: Objects vs. values, the continuation
> I'd like to remind everyone about this (self-important-sounding) document I
> shared some months ago: [
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J
Overall I find a lot to like about this presentation. I’m still a little iffy
about whether we can redefine the letters o-b-j-e-c-t in this way, but that is
largely a “syntax” reaction to your statements; the substance of the statements
sounds about right.
I especially like this bit:
The way
