While this makes sense (references to identity objects are
non-tearable), I'm not sure that is what the users will actually take
away from what you propose. If a user sees the equivalent of:
```
class Point implements NonTearable {
int x;
int y;
}
```
this is pretty easy to misinterpret. And, unlike IdentityObject, I
don't really see the static type ever being used as a type (e.g., `<T
extends NonTearable>`.) Non-tearability is a low-level thing; attaching
it to identity classes makes that harder to see.
On 3/7/2020 6:18 PM, John Rose wrote:
I’d like to
suggest that IdentityObject implements NonTearable, so that
bounds like Record & NonTearable allow identity and inline
objects.
