On Jul 20, 2022, at 9:44 AM, Remi Forax <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
And not having .ref and .val to be types greatly simplify the model, because they is no interaction between the type checking and the storage hints, those are two separated concerns. To emphasize this point: I think we're talking about years of development time that could be cut from this project if we could live with storage modifiers rather than needing to thread the flattening information through the type system. Not to mention the downstream simplification for all the developers that don't have to learn what a value type is. (Think about it: no Q types, no .val/.ref, no boxing, no universal generics, no new unchecked warnings, no secondary reflection mirrors, no new descriptors, no bridges. Just a storage modifier akin to 'volatile', support for that modifier in arrays, and value classes able to opt in to allow that modifier.) But there are details to sort out, and those details will determine whether this simplifying move is a fantasy or a viable alternative design.
