I need to do more work and have something concrete to propose before engaging
too deeply in this discussion, but:
> On Feb 9, 2022, at 11:32 AM, John Rose wrote:
>
> Regarding reflection, I think it would be OK to surface all of the
> methods (of whatever signature) on the getConstructors
> "SoV-3: constructor questions": Dan asked about validation for and
> methods. Answer: JVM doesn't care about methods in abstract
> classes, the rules about methods still uncertain.
>
> On the question of JVM validation of methods, I’m in favor of as few
>
> From: "John Rose"
> To: "daniel smith"
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:32:07 PM
> Subject: Re: EG meeting, 2022-02-09 [SoV-3: constructor questions]
> On 8 Feb 2022, at 19:04, Dan Smith wrote:
>> &quo
On 8 Feb 2022, at 19:04, Dan Smith wrote:
"SoV-3: constructor questions": Dan asked about validation for
and methods. Answer: JVM doesn't care about methods in
abstract classes, the rules about methods still uncertain.
On the question of JVM validation of `` methods, I’
> > I don't understand the point of this restriction. Since
> > Ljava/lang/Object; is acceptable (and has to be), I can use a ``
> > method to return *any* class but the caller will need to downcast to
> > use it.
>
> I think the reason we might have some sort of restriction is if we intend for
> On Jan 27, 2022, at 8:09 AM, Dan Heidinga wrote:
>
>>> 2) What is the rationale behind the return type restrictions on
>>> methods?
>
>> Treatment of methods is still unresolved, so this (and the JEP) is
>> just describing one possible approach. I tried to reach a conclusion on this
- Original Message -
> From: "Dan Heidinga"
> To: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "daniel smith" , "valhalla-spec-experts"
>
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 4:41:14 PM
> Subject: Re: SoV-3: constructor questions
>>
>&
>
> The reason John gave for allowing a method to return a super type is
> for lambda proxies.
>
> A lambda proxies is a hidden value class, i.e. a value class loaded by
> lookup.defineHiddenClass(),
> given that a hidden class as no real name, the idea is to use Object or
> perhaps the
- Original Message -
> From: "Dan Heidinga"
> To: "daniel smith"
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 4:09:58 PM
> Subject: Re: SoV-3: constructor questions
> (Resending as I forgot to CC the list - Sorry f
After re-reading the State of Valhalla part 3 again [1], I have a
couple of questions on constructor handling:
1) The rules for handling ACC_PERMITS_VALUE are different between
SoV-2 and SoV-3 in that the language imposes constraints the VM
doesn't check. Is this deliberate?
SoV-2 says:
> The
10 matches
Mail list logo
