Thanks for giving this your attention!
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 12:56 PM Dan Smith wrote:
E.g., I can imagine a world in which a no-good-default primitive class is
> no better than an identity class in most use cases, and at that point,
> we're best off simply not supporting the no-good-default f
> On Jun 29, 2021, at 11:54 AM, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
>
> Sorry for quietness of late.
Glad to have you back!
Unfortunately, there's not much new to report in this area, other than the fact
that we are aware that more design and prototyping work is needed.
Here's an open task to prototype
Sorry for quietness of late.
Some new thoughts.
- Default behaviors of language features should be based *first* on
bug-proof-ness; if a user has to opt into safety that means they were not
safe.
- `null` and nullable types are a very good thing for safety; NPE
protects us from mor
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Sent: Mardi 29 Juin 2021 18:48:25
> Subject: Re: JEP 401 -- reflection and class literals
> The general consensus here is that this stacking is slightly better than the
> previous one, so let's take this as the plan of record. Now, to explore
The general consensus here is that this stacking is slightly better than
the previous one, so let's take this as the plan of record. Now, to
explore the next turn of the crank...
The concerns that were raised could be characterized by "do we *really*
need to even have separate class literals
