Hello friends,
A couple thoughts on the fate of the primitives and wrappers.
First, on nomenclature, I think the most useful definitions of what it
means to be an "inline type" are those that reveal the primitives to *already
be* inline types. Java's always had them, but it hasn't had
*user-defin
On Jun 4, 2020, at 7:00 PM, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
>
> Hello friends,
>
> A couple thoughts on the fate of the primitives and wrappers.
>
> First, on nomenclature, I think the most useful definitions of what it means
> to be an "inline type" are those that reveal the primitives to already be
I approve of the idea of writing int.java etc. files in order to add
methods to `int`, and add interfaces to `int.ref`. It is fine if these
files are essentially "fake" (they don't actually bring the primitives
into existence as other classes do). I think attempts to try to make
them look "r
On Jun 5, 2020, at 5:43 AM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>
> The move of saying `Integer` *is* `int.ref` makes these problems go away.
> This seems too good to pass up preemptively.
I agree. And this leads us into a maze of twisty passages.
Full of uninsulated electrified wires and third rails to avoid
