Re: Initial feedback on Minimal Value Types 0.2 for discussion

Summary notes from meeting 3/15/17: attendees: Brian, Doug Lea, Stas, Frederic, Bjorn, Tobias, Mr Simms, Vladimir I, Maurizio, Karen, John 1. Identity Major decision: Doug: It is ok if a value type box does NOT retain identity. Do not be overly concerned with sync, ===, hashcode.

Re: Initial feedback on Minimal Value Types 0.2 for discussion

ge - >>> From: Karen Kinnear <karen.kinn...@oracle.com >>> <mailto:karen.kinn...@oracle.com>> >>> Sent by: "valhalla-spec-experts" >>> <valhalla-spec-experts-boun...@openjdk.java.net >>> <mailto:valhalla-spec-experts-bou

Re: Initial feedback on Minimal Value Types 0.2 for discussion

Karen / John: Can you clarify this? Do you mean that they will only be flattened when created using the reflection / MethodHandle API?   > John: MVT 1.0 will only flatten arrays reflectively   -- Bjørn VårdalJ9 Java Virtual Machine DeveloperIBM Runtimes     - Original message -From: Karen

Initial feedback on Minimal Value Types 0.2 for discussion

(This is a resend of an email I sent to valhalla-...@openjdk.java.net on January 23) Review of Minimal Value Types August 2016 Shady Edition (v 0.2) http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/values/shady-values.html Questions/Comments: