> On Jul 14, 2020, at 6:39 AM, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What about a variant of G or J where an inline class would designate a single > field to be used for "isDefault" checks. Instead of comparing all fields for > "zero" value, a single designated field would be used in checks. So a class > is free to choose which of the existing fields is "never zero/null" in the > set of valid class states or can even add a special-purpose (boolean) field > to be used just for that. Often no such special field would need to be added. > > WDYT?
This is probably more fine-grained than I want to get into right now—let's choose a direction before drilling down on how we can make it fast—but, yes, in previous discussions we have considered using a designated field as the 'isDefault' signal, rather than doing a full 'val == Foo.default'. I don't know whether that's likely to be a worthwhile optimization or not.
