Let me re-phrase my question because i've asked the wrong question. My question is not why do we need .ref in the language but why .ref can not be represented by a L-type in the bytecode instead of a full reified interface/abstract class.
Asking for a .ref is something similar to a boxing, but using checkcast to convert from a QComplex; to a LComplex; One reason may be that this is not a subtyping relationship but a boxing relationship so it may not work when well we will have fully reified generics. Rémi > From: "Brian Goetz" <brian.go...@oracle.com> > To: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr>, "valhalla-spec-experts" > <valhalla-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 9:12:21 PM > Subject: Re: Why do we need .ref class for primtive class ? > Because the Q is what permits the tearing. > On 1/6/2022 1:50 PM, Remi Forax wrote: >> It just occurs to me that while ACC_VALUE is a bit that change the runtime >> semantics, >> something the VM should take care of, ACC_PRIMITIVE is not a bit that change >> the >> runtime semantics, only the javac translation strategy, >> javac emits Q-types instead of L-type + the Preload attribute. >> If value classes and primitive classes are equivalent at runtime, why do we >> need >> to generate the .ref interface/abstract class ? >> We can use L-type instead. >> Rémi
