Hi Daniel, section 4.1: in the table 4.1-A, 13/57/45..57 is missing given you talk about later in this section.
section 4.3.2: I don't think that using null as a diferentiator (Nullable/NonNullable) is a good idea. Yes, an inline type is not nullable, but it's also flattenable, loaded early, not circular, etc. This introduce a false dichotomy which we have already spent too much time. I don't remember the exact words that John is using, but it was making more sense too me. Perhaps only renaming NullFreeClassType to InlineClassType is enough ? section 4.10.1.2: the bottom right of the schema is wrong because a reference type can be a nullable type or an inline type which is not nullable I propose reference type / \ / \ nullable type inline class | | null Rémi > De: "daniel smith" <daniel.sm...@oracle.com> > À: "valhalla-spec-experts" <valhalla-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Jeudi 13 Juin 2019 22:57:31 > Objet: Draft LW2 spec > Here's a first look at a preview-feature-quality spec for > values^H^H^H^H^H^Hinline classes. > [ > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dlsmith/inline-classes/specs/jvms-inline-classes.html > | > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dlsmith/inline-classes/specs/jvms-inline-classes.html > ] > It reflects my understanding of what LW2 is supposed to look like. I'm sure > I've > gotten out of sync on some things, so please take some time to check on things > I might be missing. > There are a few "design discussion" blocks that identify areas that may evolve > further (in LW3, say) or where the design choices we've settled on aren't > necessarily essential. > One area that required making some nontrivial choices, and could use some > extra > scrutiny, is the treatment of preparation and initialization. We know there > are > some invariants we want enforced, but there's a lot of wiggle room in deciding > how they are enforced. > Note that I've included a suite of bug fixes/presentational improvements in a > separate document, linked to in the introduction. If you notice differences > between the official JVMS text and the text I'm quoting, that's probably why. > I > don't think most people will be interested in those details, but if you are, > feel free to review the second document as well!
