On 9 Dec 2021, at 7:25, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
We may do something like that in a possible future, but i think it's
more important to make the semantics of B3 visible front and center.
If you can only say one thing in such an explicit no-arg constructor
(true initially and maybe forever)
- Original Message -
> From: "John Rose"
> To: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "Brian Goetz" , "valhalla-spec-experts"
> , "clement
> cherlin"
> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 9:45:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [External] : Re
On Dec 8, 2021, at 11:12 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
>
> I fully agree, i think it's better to do the opposite
I snapped a few neurons trying to read that the first time.
> and force the fact that all primitive value classes (Bucket 3) must have a
> default constructor and that constructor have a
> From: "John Rose"
> To: "Brian Goetz"
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts" , "clement
> cherlin"
> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 5:30:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposal: Static/final constructors for bucket-3 primitive
> classes.
> We
We have considered, at various points in the last six years or more,
allowing user-defined primitive types to define (under user control)
their own default values. The syntax is unimportant, but the concept is
simple: Surely the user who defines a primitive type can also define
default
ed Message
Subject: Proposal: Static/final constructors for bucket-3 primitive
classes.
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 21:15:50 -0600
From: Clement Cherlin
To: valhalla-spec-comme...@openjdk.java.net
Motivation: A concern with primitive classes (bucket 3) is that the
all-zeroes default
