> On Dec 23, 2021, at 12:58 PM, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote: > > But for Java, i would argue that the model is more > we have either reference objects or primitives, for reference objects you > have those with identity and those without identity, > hence "primitive" being a top-level kind while "value" (or a better term) > being a modifier.
I don't want to get too in the weeds on syntax (even though, yes, it does help convey the underlying model!). The change you propose is, indeed, a possibility that is still on the table. But: it's really important to understand that, in the proposed model, primitive values, identity objects, and value objects *all* belong to classes. That's where they get their members, via the normal rules about class membership. A primitive value is an instance of a class, even though it is not an object. Whether we use the syntax 'c l a s s' in the primitive declaration, the thing being declared is a class. Just like the thing being declared with 'e n u m' is a class.
