Continuing to shake this tree.
I'm glad we went through the exploration of "flattenable B3.ref"; while
I think we probably could address the challenges of tearing across the
null channel / data channels boundary, I'm pretty willing to let this
one go. Similarly I'm glad we went through the "a
And `var` ?
(but I agree this feels a niche)
Maurizio
On 03/06/2022 18:59, Brian Goetz wrote:
On 6/3/2022 1:39 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
*From: *"Brian Goetz"
*To: *"daniel smith" ,
"valhalla-spec-experts"
On 6/3/2022 1:39 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
*From: *"Brian Goetz"
*To: *"daniel smith" ,
"valhalla-spec-experts"
*Sent: *Friday, June 3, 2022 6:21:26 PM
*Subject: *Re: Anonymous value classes
There
- Original Message -
> From: "daniel smith"
> To: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:18:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Anonymous value classes
>> On Jun 3, 2022, at 10:15 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
>>
>> Our javac prototype has long included support for a 'value' keyword after
>>
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "daniel smith" , "valhalla-spec-experts"
>
> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:21:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Anonymous value classes
> There is no chance to get any calling-convention optimization here, since the
> concrete class name will not show up in any method descriptor (o
There is no chance to get any calling-convention optimization here,
since the concrete class name will not show up in any method descriptor
(or preload attribute). There is no chance to get any heap flattening
here, since the concrete class name will not show up in any field
descriptor or `new
> On Jun 3, 2022, at 10:15 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
>
> Our javac prototype has long included support for a 'value' keyword after
> 'new' to indicate that an anonymous class is a value class
(I see Remi brought this up in the list in July 2018, which is probably what
inspired the prototype impleme
Our javac prototype has long included support for a 'value' keyword after 'new'
to indicate that an anonymous class is a value class:
Runnable r = new value Runnable() {
public void run() { x.foo(); }
};
Is this something we'd like to preserve as a language feature?
Arguments for:
- Allows
