Re: Valhalla EG notes Jan 16, 2019

2019-01-30 Thread Brian Goetz
> Option 2: RefObject, ValObject - interfaces >VM at class definition adds RefObject to all existing classes >value classes required to declare ValObject as superinterface > >ackwardness: VM needs special behaviors for Object.wait, Object.notify - > if dynamically a ValObject, throw

Re: Valhalla EG notes Jan 16, 2019

2019-01-30 Thread Karen Kinnear
lasses of ValObject thanks, Karen > On Jan 30, 2019, at 10:21 AM, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote: > > > > De: "John Rose" > À: "Remi Forax" > Cc: "Karen Kinnear" , "valhalla-spec-experts" > > Envoyé: Mercredi 30 Janvier 2019 00:29:01 &

Re: Valhalla EG notes Jan 16, 2019

2019-01-30 Thread Brian Goetz
> I think i still prefer having interfaces Val/Ref instead of classes, these > interfaces can be injected by the VM, at least the Ref interface can be > injected, for the Val interface, we can requires all value types to implement > that interface. I view using interfaces instead of classes

Re: Valhalla EG notes Jan 16, 2019

2019-01-30 Thread forax
> De: "John Rose" > À: "Remi Forax" > Cc: "Karen Kinnear" , "valhalla-spec-experts" > > Envoyé: Mercredi 30 Janvier 2019 00:29:01 > Objet: Re: Valhalla EG notes Jan 16, 2019 > On Jan 29, 2019, at 11:10 AM, Remi Forax < [ mailto:

Re: Valhalla EG notes Jan 16, 2019

2019-01-30 Thread Remi Forax
> De: "John Rose" > À: "Brian Goetz" > Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts" > Envoyé: Mercredi 30 Janvier 2019 01:20:50 > Objet: Re: Valhalla EG notes Jan 16, 2019 > On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:27 PM, Brian Goetz < [ mailto:brian.go...@oracle.com |

Re: Valhalla EG notes Jan 16, 2019

2019-01-29 Thread John Rose
On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:27 PM, Brian Goetz wrote: > > But, now we a problem: we have existing code that erases arrays to > `Object[]`, but after the flag day, such code will erase to Array instead. Maybe, another way to address this, besides bridging distinct descriptors, is to declare that the

Re: Valhalla EG notes Jan 16, 2019

2019-01-29 Thread John Rose
On Jan 29, 2019, at 11:10 AM, Remi Forax wrote: > > currently the result of the expression "new Object()" is a reference type, so > it should be a RefObject, but we have created an Object not a RefObject, > so it's at best weird. I'd like to rationalize this in two steps. First, allow `new

Re: Valhalla EG notes Jan 16, 2019

2019-01-29 Thread Brian Goetz
On 1/29/2019 1:55 PM, Karen Kinnear wrote: Brian: Could flesh out Arrays 2.0 path a bit more so we see migration costs with covariance, least cognitive dissonance As promised The motivation for all this is driven by the desire to compatibly migrate existing generic libraries (JDK

Re: Valhalla EG notes Jan 16, 2019

2019-01-29 Thread Remi Forax
- Mail original - > De: "Karen Kinnear" > À: "valhalla-spec-experts" > Envoyé: Mardi 29 Janvier 2019 19:55:17 > Objet: Valhalla EG notes Jan 16, 2019 > Attendees: Remi, Tobi, Dan H, John, Brian, Simms, Fred, Karen > Corrections welcome - thank yo

Valhalla EG notes Jan 16, 2019

2019-01-29 Thread Karen Kinnear
Attendees: Remi, Tobi, Dan H, John, Brian, Simms, Fred, Karen Corrections welcome - thank you John for your summary notes AIs: Remi - write up why if we retrofit arrays for Arrays 2.0 specializable interface, do we need covariance? All: find examples where existing code assumes