On Nov 22, 2021, at 5:13 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>
>> On Nov 22, 2021, at 2:07 PM, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 6:27 AM Dan Heidinga wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll echo Brian's comment that I'd like to understand Kevin's use
>>> cases better to see if there's something we're miss
> On Nov 22, 2021, at 2:07 PM, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 6:27 AM Dan Heidinga wrote:
>>
>> I'll echo Brian's comment that I'd like to understand Kevin's use
>> cases better to see if there's something we're missing in the design /
>> a major use case that isn't being
Thanks, Brian, for many useful suggestions about the diagram.
I have updated it in place. Its message should be clearer now.
On Nov 21, 2021, at 9:05 PM, John Rose
mailto:john.r.r...@oracle.com>> wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/values/type-kinds-venn.pdf
Or, to put it another way: success looks like yet another "got the
defaults wrong", where people should default to B2 unless they need B1,
and "pure" joins the ranks of "final" and "private" of "I shoulda been
the default."
Right, that's what you're saying?
On 11/22/2021 4:07 PM, Kevin Bourri
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 6:27 AM Dan Heidinga wrote:
I'll echo Brian's comment that I'd like to understand Kevin's use
> cases better to see if there's something we're missing in the design /
> a major use case that isn't being addressed that will cause useer
> confusion / pain.
>
Sorry if I thre
I wouldn't say we flipped anything. But we have made a lot of progress
on the model; at first we thought abstract supers at all were a bridge
too far, but we found the right set of constraints and it seems to fit
naturally now. So it makes sense to ask the question whether we're at
the edge,
> This is the second turn of the crank (the first was "you can extend Object
> only"), but as this conversation hinted, there may be a further turn where
> abstract identity-agnostic classes can contribute to the layout and
> initialization of a concrete final by-value class without pulling it i
Is there a way to make that work in Java, so that
identity-free classes can inherit from each other?
Probably, in some limited way. The simplest move
is the one Brian and I are liking here, where a
completely non-concrete class (one with no fields
and no commitment to object identity) can be
re
I'll echo Brian's comment that I'd like to understand Kevin's use
cases better to see if there's something we're missing in the design /
a major use case that isn't being addressed that will cause useer
confusion / pain.
That said
> Yes. The key thing is that the abstract class in question
On Nov 19, 2021, at 5:32 AM, Brian Goetz
mailto:brian.go...@oracle.com>> wrote:
And this is not inconsistent with abstract superclasses contributing fields.
For me the poster child is Enum as much as Record. I want pure
enums, some day, but in order to make this work we need a way for
the ordin
On Nov 18, 2021, at 2:58 PM, Remi Forax
mailto:fo...@univ-mlv.fr>> wrote:
I suppose you are talking about empty (no field) abstract classes.
We need that for j.l.Object, j.l.Number or j.l.Record.
From a user POV, it's not very different from an interface with default methods.
Yes. The key thin
Yes. One way I like to think about the Old Bucket is
that it is characterized by *concrete* representations
which have somehow opted into object identity.
Confusingly, the Old Bucket also contains interfaces
which are non-concrete and also Object, which might
as well be non-concrete. (I’m not sa
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Dan Heidinga"
> Cc: "Remi Forax" , "Kevin Bourrillion" ,
> "daniel smith" , "valhalla-spec-experts"
>
> Sent: Vendredi 19 Novembre 2021 14:32:38
> Subject: Re: [External] : Re: EG mee
dinga" mailto:heidi...@redhat.com>>, "daniel
smith" mailto:daniel.sm...@oracle.com>>,
"valhalla-spec-experts"
mailto:valhalla-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net>>
Sent: Jeudi 18 Novembre 2021 23:34:51
Subject: Re: EG meeting, 2021-11-17
I think it is reasonable to consid
PM, Remi Forax wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Kevin Bourrillion"
> Cc: "Dan Heidinga" , "daniel smith"
> , "valhalla-spec-experts"
>
> Sent: Jeudi 18 Novembre 2021 23:3
mailto:brian.go...@oracle.com>>
To: "Kevin Bourrillion" mailto:kev...@google.com>>
Cc: "Dan Heidinga" mailto:heidi...@redhat.com>>, "daniel
smith" mailto:daniel.sm...@oracle.com>>,
"valhalla-spec-experts"
mailto:valhalla-spec-experts@openjdk.j
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Kevin Bourrillion"
> Cc: "Dan Heidinga" , "daniel smith"
> , "valhalla-spec-experts"
>
> Sent: Jeudi 18 Novembre 2021 23:34:51
> Subject: Re: EG meeting, 2021-11-17
> I think it is reasonab
I think it is reasonable to consider allowing bucket two classes to be
abstract. They could be extended by other classes which would either be
abstract or final. The intermediate types are polymorphic but the terminal type
is monomorphic.
A similar argument works for records.
Sent from my iPa
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:05 PM Dan Heidinga wrote:
Let me turn the question around: What do we gain by allowing
> subclassing of B2 classes?
>
I'm not claiming it's much. I'm just coming into this from a different
direction.
In my experience most immutable (or stateless) classes have no real
i
>> > For the moment I think this does probably carry over to
>> > WithIdentity/WithoutIdentity or whatever they are called. The question I
>> > think is still open (to me) is whether there really are active contractual
>> > implications of being identityless or if it's equivalent to being
>> >
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Dan Heidinga wrote:
> For the moment I think this does probably carry over to
> WithIdentity/WithoutIdentity or whatever they are called. The question I
> think is still open (to me) is whether there really are active contractual
> implications of being identityle
>> "identityless objects and the type hierarchy": discussed how the
>> IdentityObject/PrimitiveObject interfaces are used in the "Consolidating the
>> user model" world
>
>
> For the moment I think this does probably carry over to
> WithIdentity/WithoutIdentity or whatever they are called. The q
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 9:41 AM Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
(The biggest ergonomic problem of `.equals()`
>
... is that it's not negatable, sometimes forcing a `!` to be far away to
the left, and I'm not under the impression pattern-matching addresses that.)
--
Kevin Bourrillion | Java Libraria
Derp, I slept in today
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:39 AM Dan Smith wrote:
"Consolidating the user model": followup discussions homed in on how we
> model primitive values—whether they're reference-less objects or some other
> "value" entity, and how they interact with reference types
>
I'm in pr
EG Zoom meeting today at 5pm UTC (9am PDT, 12pm EDT).
Lots of traffic this time, we can have follow up discussions wherever there's
interest. Potential topics:
"Consolidating the user model": followup discussions homed in on how we model
primitive values—whether they're reference-less objects o
25 matches
Mail list logo
