On 4/9/19 1:04 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
> OK, let’s make this problem a little simpler. The question of terminology in
> the JVMS is harder, but we have a syntax decision to make at the source code
> level. So far its been proposed we replace “value class” with
>
> inline class Foo { }
>
> In addition to liking the sound of it, I like that it is more “modifer-y”
> than “value”, meaning that it could conceivably be applied to other entities:
>
> inline record R(int a);
>
> inline enum Foo { A, B };
I had sworn not to have opinions about syntax, because my reactions are
probably not typical, but "inline" seems to under-stress issues users
should keep in mind. How about "internal"?
internal class Foo(); internal record R();
-Doug
