On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 09:45:27 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I struggle to grasp the implications of tagging an object's field values >>> rather than the object. >> >> You have got it in a wrong way. Value objects have no identity. The tag is >> associated with the object's content/payload. Then all value object copies >> with the same type and payload considered to be the same object and have the >> same tag. > >> I think it reads a little bit better this way, but I'm fine with what you >> have also. But either wording still is going to require the reader to >> "connect to dots" to come to an understanding of what this really means to >> them. I guess we can wait and see if there is feedback from developers. > > Thank you for the suggestion. > Let's keep it as it is for now and see if there is any feedback on value > objects tagging. > You have got it in a wrong way. No I understand it, though I may not be expressing it well. But I find it very hard to interpret the suggested words in a way that actually explains it. This is the "connect the dots" that Chris refers to. The wording may be factually correct, but actually understanding what it means requires additional insight. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32211#discussion_r3733288447
