> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:46 PM, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
>
> My reason for complaining here is not just about the java.time types
> themselves, but to argue that this is an important 4th bucket we should be
> concerned about. In some ways it is a bigger problem that Bucket #3 "no good
> defaul
Brian pointed out that my list of candidate inline classes in the Identity
Warnings JEP (JDK-8249100) includes a number of classes that, despite being
"value-based classes" and disavowing their identity, might not end up as inline
classes. The problem? Default values.
This might be a good time
> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:53 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>
> From valhalla-spec-observers,
>
> - Mail original -
>> De: "Gernot Neppert"
>> À: "Valhalla Expert Group Observers"
>>
>> Envoyé: Vendredi 10 Juillet 2020 12:06:32
>> Objet: Clarification needed about primitive wrappers?
>
>> Hel
The reality is we are evolving our perspective as we gain experience with the
model. Once we prove out that we have something that actually works, There
will be a round of updating the terminology.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 10, 2020, at 8:54 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>
> From valhalla-spec-o
>From valhalla-spec-observers,
- Mail original -
> De: "Gernot Neppert"
> À: "Valhalla Expert Group Observers"
>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 10 Juillet 2020 12:06:32
> Objet: Clarification needed about primitive wrappers?
> Hello,
>
> it seems some clarification is needed about the fate of the
