----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian Goetz" <brian.go...@oracle.com> > To: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> > Cc: "Kevin Bourrillion" <kev...@google.com>, "valhalla-spec-experts" > <valhalla-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 1:57:28 AM > Subject: Re: [External] : Re: Objects vs. values, the continuation
> I agree totally, the former are semantic properties and the latter is a side > effect of representation. But that doesn’t help us much, because if people > assume that these have the same finial field safety / integrity properties as > reference objects, they will be in for a painful surprise. So this has to be > part of the story. Interfaces in Golang are tearable and nobody care, i never seen somebody introducing interfaces in Go saying that they do not have integrity. It's important when talking about the memory model, but first you have to talk about what is the memory model. I think the fact that you can bypass constructor is a bigger deal that's why i still think that the compiler should add an empty constructor to the primitive class and do not allow the user to override it. Rémi > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Apr 24, 2022, at 6:30 PM, Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: >> >> >> I think that having a default value / not being null is a property that is > > easier to understand and easier to grasp than the concept of integrity.
