> De: "Kevin Bourrillion" <kev...@google.com> > À: "Brian Goetz" <brian.go...@oracle.com> > Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts" <valhalla-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Lundi 8 Avril 2019 20:25:24 > Objet: Re: generic specialization design discussion
> I'd suggest the name should in some way allude to the inline/compact/flat > memory > layout, because that is the distinguishing feature of these new things > compared > to anything else you can do in Java. And it is what people should be thinking > about as they decide whether a new class should use this. immediate class ? Rémi > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 10:02 AM Brian Goetz < [ mailto:brian.go...@oracle.com > | > brian.go...@oracle.com ] > wrote: >> The slide deck contains a list of terminology. I’d like to posit that the >> most >> confusion-reducing thing we could do is come up with another word for value >> types/classes/instances, since the word “value” is already used to describe >> primitives and references themselves. This is a good time to see if there are >> better names available. >> So for this thread only, we’re turning on the syntax light to discuss what >> might >> be a better name for the abstraction currently known as “value classes”. >>> On Mar 29, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Rose < [ mailto:john.r.r...@oracle.com | >> > john.r.r...@oracle.com ] > wrote: >> > This week I gave some presentations of my current thinking >> > about specializations to people (from Oracle and IBM) gathered >> > in Burlington. Here it is FTR. If you read it you will find lots >> > of questions, as well as requirements and tentative answers. >>> [ http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/pres/201903-TemplateDesign.pdf | >> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/pres/201903-TemplateDesign.pdf ] >> > This is a checkpoint. I have more tentative answers on the >> > drawing board that didn't fit into the slide deck. Stay tuned. >> > — John > -- > Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | [ > mailto:kev...@google.com | > kev...@google.com ]
