----- Mail original ----- > De: "John Rose" <john.r.r...@oracle.com> > À: "Kevin Bourrillion" <kev...@google.com> > Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts" <valhalla-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Samedi 23 Février 2019 03:57:56 > Objet: Re: Finding the spirit of L-World
> On Feb 22, 2019, at 11:42 AM, Kevin Bourrillion <kev...@google.com> wrote: >> >> I think we should make users write `equals` to test value types. If they >> write >> `==`, they are indicating a special situation where they need identity >> semantics, which don't make sense for value types, and that should be an >> error. > > This sounds like a proposal for the future, but as Brian points > out it is also a constraint on large amounts of generic code > that has already been written. No it's not because there is no reified generics code yet. You don't need to support == on a T which can be reified, because at the same time you add 'any' in front of T (or whatever way to say that the container class is a reified generics) you can also replace the use of == + equals (LIFE) to use substituableEquals() instead. > > Let's make the best of op==; it's in our past and the future > of comparison logic in Java is too tightly coupled with the past. This remember me another issue, we are discussing a lot about Java the language but that's not the only language that run on the JVM, by making acmp be an equivalent of substituableEquals() we are making a choice of semantics that may be ok for Java the language but clearly this change of semantics also impact the other languages, i'm thinking about Clojure's identical? by example. > > — John Rémi
