On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 16:31:24 GMT, Frederic Parain <[email protected]> wrote:
>> OK. I've updated the comments to what you suggested. I'm still a little bit >> hesitant a about that formulation, it now sounds like there's an important >> property that the object has an identity, but I don't think that's why the >> assert is there. Isn't it more that we shouldn't be calling this function >> with value objects? > > The important point is more immutability than identity. Instances of value > classes are immutable by definition. Identity objects can be mutable. What > about "object must be mutable" instead? > Or more precise: "receiver cannot be an instance of a value class because > they are immutable"? I'll change to that instead. Thanks. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/2258#discussion_r2982917615
