Sorry for even slower response...
On 10/11/18 10:14 AM, Brian Goetz wrote: > > Except, the current story falls down here, because authors must content > with the special all-zero default value, because, unlike classes, we > cannot guarantee that instances are the result of a constructor. Can we enumerate the cases where this is encoutered? The main one is: If a value class does not have a no-arg constructor, why not disallow array construction (dynamically if necessary), but also supply special methods such as createAndFillArray(int size, T proto) and a few others to still allow safe array construction when it applies. In most cases where not-yet-present is a common case, one would think that people would choose to make T an Object type or use Optional<T> rather than using a pure value type. -Doug
