On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 03:44:14 GMT, David Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 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. This current explanation is going to be very hard for most readers to grasp. We tend to not notice this difficulty because when we read it we already have a full understanding of what it means and how it is implemented. Readers without our background are going to have difficulty fulling grasping what this means. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32211#discussion_r3733533189
