On Apr 9, 2019, at 2:06 PM, John Rose wrote:
>
> Not bad. More riffing:
Another one: "immediate" instead of "inline".
Connotation from assembly code is "stuck in the
middle of something else, not a variable".
Etymology is "nothing between the user and
the object, no mediator". Regular
On Apr 9, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Daniel Heidinga wrote:
>
> Riffing on the "inline" term and tying things back to the flattenable
> discussions - what about using "flat" as the keyword?
>
Not bad. More riffing:
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/flat
also has "spread out" and "level".
Riffing on the "inline" term and tying things back to the flattenable discussions - what about using "flat" as the keyword?
flat class Foo { }
flat record R (int i);
--Dan
- Original message -From: Maurizio Cimadamore Sent by: "valhalla-spec-experts" To: Brian Goetz , Doug Lea Cc:
On 09/04/2019 18:04, Brian Goetz wrote:
In addition to liking the sound of it, I like that it is more “modifer-y” than
“value”, meaning that it could conceivably be applied to other entities:
inline record R(int a);
inline enum Foo { A, B };
I like it too - especially because in
On Apr 9, 2019, at 11:55 AM, John Rose wrote:
>
> It's not like the UML experts are looking at the last
> two decades of our thrashing out the value model,
> and saying "yep, we wondered when you would get
> here". They are as stuck in the Smalltalk model as
> we were.
P.S. I did a quick scan
- Mail original -
> De: "Brian Goetz"
> À: "Doug Lea"
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Avril 2019 19:04:36
> Objet: Re: generic specialization design discussion
> OK, let’s make this problem a little simpler. The question of terminology in
> the JVMS is harder, but we
> I had sworn not to have opinions about syntax, because my reactions are
> probably not typical, but "inline" seems to under-stress issues users
> should keep in mind. How about "internal"?
>
> internal class Foo(); internal record R();
I think most users think “internal” is associated with
On 4/9/19 1:04 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
> OK, let’s make this problem a little simpler. The question of terminology in
> the JVMS is harder, but we have a syntax decision to make at the source code
> level. So far its been proposed we replace “value class” with
>
> inline class Foo { }
>
On Apr 8, 2019, at 4:50 PM, Doug Lea wrote:
>
> On 4/8/19 6:44 PM, John Rose wrote:
>
>> If we move terms around so "value" gets replaced by "inline",
>> and "reference" by "indirect", only the first two lines are
>> affected:
>>
>> “inline object”, “indirect object” (also inline or indirect
OK, let’s make this problem a little simpler. The question of terminology in
the JVMS is harder, but we have a syntax decision to make at the source code
level. So far its been proposed we replace “value class” with
inline class Foo { }
In addition to liking the sound of it, I like that
Attendees: Dan H, Tobi, Remi, Brian, Simms, Frederic, Karen
corrections welcome (apologies for delay)
I. Value Types user model
Brian:
Value types user model: V, V? (V? value set including null) replace .val and
.box
Don’t need all degrees of freedom.
This is a simpler story, will capture in a
> De: "Brian Goetz"
> À: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Avril 2019 15:39:19
> Objet: Re: Updated VM-bridges document
>>> OK, I see what you’re getting at now. Yes, this is one of the implementation
>>> possibilities. I was mostly looking to validate the concepts
> OK, I see what you’re getting at now. Yes, this is one of the implementation
> possibilities. I was mostly looking to validate the concepts before diving
> into the representational details. One key point is that the default case
> should be able to proceed with no bootstrap; a small set
> De: "Brian Goetz"
> À: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Envoyé: Lundi 8 Avril 2019 20:39:03
> Objet: Re: Updated VM-bridges document
> OK, I see what you’re getting at now. Yes, this is one of the implementation
> possibilities. I was mostly looking to validate the concepts
14 matches
Mail list logo
