On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 10:57 AM Dan Heidinga wrote:
This will have high costs in the regular performance model as it will
>
Sorry, I should have mentioned up front that we'd have to be content with
only the warnings we can spot at compile-time.
I also should have been clear that none of this i
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 1:34 PM Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
>
> I'd like to bump this thread, as it seems to me to be the biggest obstacle to
> bucket 2 being able to deliver value.
>
> * A warning not just on synchronization, but on *any* identity-dependence.
This will have high costs in the regul
I'd like to bump this thread, as it seems to me to be the biggest obstacle
to bucket 2 being able to deliver value.
* A warning not just on synchronization, but on *any* identity-dependence.
* Not special for Integer etc.; it all needs to work through a general
facility that anyone can use.
*
I agree that Bucket 2 is largely uncontroversial (and largely
implemented) and makes a sensible unit of delivery -- with the proviso
that we need to properly message that it will not yet deliver the
performance improvements that most users are hoping to get out of
Valhalla. There'll be no heap
Returning to this thread and going up a level or two:
The real impact of this discussion, imho, should not be "now let's rush a
declarative nullness feature out asap", or even "let's solve bucket 3 now
in a way nullness will have to be harmonious with later". What I humbly
suggest it points to is,
