Also, we’re conflating two separate questions here. 1. What does V? mean. In the proposed world, it is the union type of V and Null, nothing more (alternately: V adjoined with null.).
2. What is the relationship between V and V? — is it sub typing, or conversion? I think Remi is more interested in (2), but you keep saying “it should be a box”,w which suggests we’re not on the same page with respect to (1) either, yet. > On May 1, 2019, at 9:24 AM, Brian Goetz <brian.go...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> >> a box is a necessary evil, everybody want to write an ArrayList<int> but we >> are not there yet, so we provide just the right abstraction to deal with >> value type in generics, not more. > > I think this is where we part ways. In Java 1.0, with respect to primitives, > a box was a necessary evil, because ints are not Objects. In Q-world, when > we thought we couldn’t get away with values being Object, we thought it was a > necessary evil again. L-world taught us we don’t need boxes, and that’s a > huge weight lifted off our shoulders! > > Boxes are messy; if they are necessary, we can live with them, but if they > are not, why would we want to? > > There are two paths here: > - Cripple values exactly as much as primitives are crippled, and everyone is > on an even footing; > - Make values what we want everything to be, and catch up later with > primitives to the extent we can. > > But, you’re not making your case, you’re just saying “I think it should be > the other way.” Make the case why the proposed new way is worse!
