Re: class, type, instance, object, value

On Jul 12, 2017, at 6:20 AM, Karen Kinnear wrote: > > John, > > Thank you for writing this up. Couple of questions/comments. > > - The class of a boxed value is the value class. (Thus each value class > derives at least two types.) > This one confuses me. I am not

Re: class, type, instance, object, value

ot; <john.r.r...@oracle.com> > À: "Bjorn B Vardal" <bjorn...@ca.ibm.com> > Cc: valhalla-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net > Envoyé: Lundi 26 Juin 2017 20:41:49 > Objet: Re: class, type, instance, object, value > On Jun 26, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Bjorn B Vardal <bjorn...@ca.

Re: class, type, instance, object, value

John, Thank you for writing this up. Couple of questions/comments. - The class of a boxed value is the value class. (Thus each value class derives at least two types.) This one confuses me. I am not sure what you are referring to. 1) source: declaration - declared as a value class 2)

Re: class, type, instance, object, value

On Jun 26, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Bjorn B Vardal wrote: > >> > value field: (ambig.) field whose type is a value type (in any kind of >> > class) OR a field in a value class (of any type) > > If you want to resolve this ambiguity, I've been referring to the former as a >

Re: class, type, instance, object, value

On Jun 25, 2017, at 7:17 PM, John Rose wrote: > > object: (ambig.) a reference to an object instance OR context-dependent > ellipsis for value type/class/instance s/ellipsis for value/ellipsis for object/

class, type, instance, object, value

So, I'm writing more and more documentation that discusses objects and primitives while bringing values into the mix. What seems right to me is that we allow the terms "class", "type", and "instance" to symmetrically cover both legacy object types and new value types. We should continue to use