Usually the difference between a class and a type is more runtime vs compile time. A type exist at compile time, a class exist at runtime. A type at compile time which is propagated as a class at runtime is a reified type, etc...
Rémi ----- Mail original ----- > De: "John Rose" <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.ibm.com> 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 >> "value typed field" and the latter as a "value field". >> > > Yes, that can work where the context is strong enough to keep the reader > alert. > But a single letter 'd' is a slender hook to hang your meaning on, and its > *absence* is even > more delicate. Unless the context makes it very clear, I'd want to say "value > class field", > or "field in a value" (ellipsis for "value class") instead of "value field" as > you suggest. > > (Remember, classes define fields, and then they show up in a type's API > surface. > So you can usually clarify "field of some type" to "field in some class" or > "field of > that type's class". And on the other hand "field with that type" or even > "field > of that > type". The word "of" is treacherous here, and "in" and "with" are more > reliable.) > > In some cases you have to spit out even more words to be safe: "field within > value type", > "field that is a member of a value type", "field declared as a value type", > "field whose type > is a value type", etc., etc. Some of those circumlocutions benefit from > ellipsis (which is > "value" standing for "value type" with the "type" clear from context). > > Note that Java is already full of small ambiguities like this: "Interface > field", "inner class field", > "wrapper type field". Perhaps we could lean harder on the class-vs-type > distinction: "Field of > an interface type" is a "field typed as an interface (type)" whereas "Field of > an interface class" > is a "field declared in a class which defines an interface". > > (But we don't say "interface class" at this point, and it would be hard to get > folks to accept it, > even though it would clarify existing ambiguities about "class" meaning "class > or interface or > enum" in many places.) > > — John
