Re: Draft LW2 spec

Updated spec: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dlsmith/lw2/lw2-20190628/specs/inline-classes-jvms.html What's new? - Specification for using "" as a regular method name. Lots of choices to be made here, so I'm curious about how what I ended up with compares to what is currently implemented. - Adde

Re: Draft LW2 spec

> On Jun 20, 2019, at 8:23 AM, Karen Kinnear wrote: > > 1. Versioning > Thank you for asking. > For LW10, we plan to use preview versioning. For LW2, we just use JDK13 cfv 57 Fixed now in my local copy (which I'll share soon). > 2. 2.4 Reference Types and Values > Bullet defining Array componen

Re: Draft LW2 spec

Dan, Many thanks for putting out a draft JVMS for LW2. Folks - if you could be explicit in review comments whether they are relevant to LW2 or to post-LW2, e.g. design discussions, that would help. LW2 comments: 1. Versioning Thank you for asking. For LW10, we plan to use preview versioning. F

Re: Draft LW2 spec

> On Jun 13, 2019, at 2:57 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > > Here's a first look at a preview-feature-quality spec for > values^H^H^H^H^H^Hinline classes. > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dlsmith/inline-classes/specs/jvms-inline-classes.html > >

Re: Draft LW2 spec

> On Jun 14, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Brian Goetz wrote: > >> There are a few "design discussion" blocks that identify areas that may >> evolve further (in LW3, say) or where the design choices we've settled on >> aren't necessarily essential. > > Here's a few more: > > - The ACC_INLINE bit may wel

Re: Draft LW2 spec

> On Jun 14, 2019, at 1:03 PM, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote: > >>> section 4.3.2: >>> I don't think that using null as a diferentiator (Nullable/NonNullable) is a >>> good idea. >>> Yes, an inline type is not nullable, but it's also flattenable, loaded >>> early, >>> not circular, etc. This introduce

Re: Draft LW2 spec

There are a few "design discussion" blocks that identify areas that may evolve further (in LW3, say) or where the design choices we've settled on aren't necessarily essential. Here's a few more:  - The ACC_INLINE bit may well go away if we settle on a RefObject / ValObject hierarchy; the

Re: Draft LW2 spec

- Mail original - > De: "daniel smith" > À: "Remi Forax" > Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts" > Envoyé: Vendredi 14 Juin 2019 18:56:40 > Objet: Re: Draft LW2 spec >> On Jun 14, 2019, at 2:54 AM, Remi Forax wrote: >> >> Hi Dan

Re: Draft LW2 spec

> On Jun 14, 2019, at 2:54 AM, Remi Forax wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > section 4.1: in the table 4.1-A, > 13/57/45..57 is missing given you talk about later in this section. That's not a change this feature is responsible for, but you're right that it needs to be changed. We have this awkward bo

Re: Draft LW2 spec

Hi Daniel, section 4.1: in the table 4.1-A, 13/57/45..57 is missing given you talk about later in this section. section 4.3.2: I don't think that using null as a diferentiator (Nullable/NonNullable) is a good idea. Yes, an inline type is not nullable, but it's also flattenable, loaded early