Thanks Dan!
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:47 AM Dan Heidinga wrote:
And I'm unclear on why the ephemeral information presentation is
> prefered to the Platonic meaning?
>
Indeed I've gotten this feedback before too. My response was that it's not
so much that one is "preferred", as that there just
- Original Message -
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "Kevin Bourrillion" , "valhalla-spec-experts"
>
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 1:57:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [External] : Re: Objects vs. values, the continuation
> From: "Kevin Bourrillion"
> To: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 4:17:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Objects vs. values, the continuation
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 6:23 PM Remi Forax < [ mailto:fo...@uni
The fact that these are "small" (at most 64 bits) is incidental, not essential;
introducing a new quadruple type would not destabilize our concept of a
primitive value.
If we can tip the user's mental model so that they believe "small is
good" for B3 values, then we aid them in hitting the swe
Hi Kevin,
A question about the "Values" subsection of the "Model" section. You
draw a distinction between the Platonic value and values as ephemeral
pieces of information.
> A value is less than all that! It's just an ephemeral piece of information
> being communicated directly from some progra
I think what is missing from our presentation — and likely key to succeeding —
is how to describe “compound value” in a way that feels like a thing.
Well, a `double` is already a compound value that feels like a thing. Java just
hides the internal structure instead of having us access d.exponen
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 11:58 AM Brian Goetz wrote:
I think what is missing from our presentation — and likely key to
> succeeding — is how to describe “compound value” in a way that feels like a
> thing.
>
Well, a `double` is already a compound value that feels like a thing. Java
just hides the
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 6:23 PM Remi Forax wrote:
As we discussed earlier, there are two approaches, one is to say that
> instance of class = object | value
> the other is to say that
> instance of class = object = reference object | immediate object
>
> I prefer the later to the former, bec
I agree totally, the former are semantic properties and the latter is a side
effect of representation. But that doesn’t help us much, because if people
assume that these have the same finial field safety / integrity properties as
reference objects, they will be in for a painful surprise. So th
> From: "Remi Forax"
> To: "Kevin Bourrillion"
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 12:23:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Objects vs. values, the continuation
>> From: "Kevin Bourrillion"
>> To: "valhalla
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Kevin Bourrillion"
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 5:57:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Objects vs. values, the continuation
> Overall I find a lot to like about this presentation. I’m still a
> From: "Kevin Bourrillion"
> To: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 12:38:12 AM
> Subject: Objects vs. values, the continuation
> I'd like to remind everyone about this (self-important-sounding) document I
> shared some months ago: [
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J
Overall I find a lot to like about this presentation. I’m still a little iffy
about whether we can redefine the letters o-b-j-e-c-t in this way, but that is
largely a “syntax” reaction to your statements; the substance of the statements
sounds about right.
I especially like this bit:
The way
13 matches
Mail list logo
