On Apr 3, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Christian Thalinger
<christian.thalin...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Of course they are popular because these are the type names. There is no
> type L; it’s an object. I don’t understand why we have to use different
> names just because they are used in other namespaces. This is not a C define.
They stand for JVM signatures as well as basic types. The letters are
signature letters. Can we move on from this?
— John
_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
