The following was received on valhalla-spec-comments.
Without deep-diving into the specific syntax suggestion, which I'll
summarize as "default values are values, and we have fields to specify
values, so why wouldn't we do that?", the main thing here is that there
is a concern that we might make the distinction between B2 and B3 "too
subtle", and that would "lead to overuse of B3".
There is a challenge with the specifics here, in that the stated goal is
to explicitly specify the default, but (a) it is not possible to
explicitly specify an arbitrary default (which using a field would
imply), and (b) it is not possible to conveniently denote "the instance
where all the fields have their default values". So I don't think the
field-centric approach is a winner, but again, that's not the main value
of such a suggestion.
I'm not a fan of arguments that start with "we should force the
user..."; while we often do go down this road (e.g., subtypes of sealed
types must be explicitly sealed, final, or non-sealed, to avoid
ambiguities over defaults), such arguments should start with "here is
what would go wrong if people didn't understand the defaults properly."
So, what I'd like to see is more specifics on _how_ B3 might be overused
and _why_ that is bad before considering these syntactic directions.
Some additional relevant observations about the current direction:
- Value classes, without any reference to the special property of
"usable without initialization" or atomicity under race, are very
simple: they are like ordinary classes without identity. As a direct
consequence, identity-sensitive operations (==, synchronized, etc) are
either redefined based on state or are partialized, and features that
require identity (mutability, layout polymorphism) are disallowed. They
are otherwise like identity classes in every other way -- they are
reference types, variables of such class types are nullable, etc. This
is the "simplest possible" interpretation of value classes, in that the
only thing we take away is identity.
- This interpretation of value classes is a "safe default"; if you
don't go the extra mile and talk about uninitialized use, or atomicity,
you get something with the same safety properties as identity classes.
You have to explicitly do something extra to get the B3 properties.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: B3, default values, and implicit initialization
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 11:23:54 +0100
From: Stephen Colebourne <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
From my perspective, the difference between B2 and B3 is vital, as I
fear developers will greatly overuse B3. I don't think "default
constructors" are the right focus.
The initial discussions of B2 vs B3 focussed on one main question -
does the type have a sensible default. `LocalDate` does not, but
`Decimal` or `Optional` does (zero or empty). The big issue Valhalla
faces during adoption from my perspective is the messaging, which is
far too easy to simplify to B3 faster than B2 faster than B1. The net
result would be many more 1979-01-01 type bugs. Without great care
here we could be creating the potential for many null-like
"million-dollar mistakes".
To counteract this, the syntax IMO needs to place the issue at hand
directly in the face of the developer. And the key question is "what
is the sensible default value for an instance of this type". Given
this, I think all authors of *all* value types should be forced to
*explicitly* define what the default value is. ie. it isn't something
where the language should choose one or the other as the default
(sic).
The obvious syntax is a field, which is implicitly public static
final. I don't feel that a class-level keyword is the right choice
here:
public value LocalDate {
default = null;
}
public value Decimal {
default = new;
}
In each case, the author has had to explicitly choose what the
sensible default is, and therefore implicitly chooses whether it is B2
and B3 - without any opportunity to be distracted by the performance
model. Neither B2 or B3 is chosen as the favourite by the language.
"It is a compilation error when a value class declaration does not
specify a default value".
By contrast, default constructors are one or two steps removed from
the actual decision point that the class author should actually be
thinking about, which is what the sensible default is. It is also the
case that the default constructor is never actually invoked, which
will be an ongoing point of surprise.
Terminology in specs just talks about what the default value is, eg
"authors should select the most appropriate default value for their
domain", "arrays are initialised to the default value of a value type"
or "if the default is null then ...":
The syntax is intended to make it perfectly reasonable to ask for
`LocalDate.default` or `Decimal.default` and get a sensible answer -
it looks like a "normal" constant in code. The use of `default = new`
by itself deliberately invokes the idea of a default constructor that
does nothing, without the need to spell it out.
Javadoc can be added to the `default` constant, which is very helpful.
For example it might include justification as to why LocaleDate does
not have a default value of 0000-01-01 or 1970-01-01.
Stephen
On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 at 20:13, Brian Goetz <[email protected]> wrote:
The recent update of JEP 401 contained a number of refinements to the user
model, specifically, separating the primitive/reference distinction into a
number of smaller distinctions (e.g., nullable vs non-nullable, optional vs
required construction.) Overall this has been a very positive step forward.
We still have a need for the distinction between what we've been calling B2 and B3; JEP 401 currently frames
that in terms of "construction is optional." This is a big step forward; indeed, the key
difference between them is whether the class _needs_ the "variables start out as null, and all instances
are created by constructors" protection, or whether it admits the lighter-weight initialization protocol
of "there's a a standard zero value, null-free variables are initialized to that" that primitives
enjoy today. (Note that B3 classes don't require this lighter protocol, they merely enable it, much as
primitives all give you the option of boxing to get the full conservative initialization protocol.)
The idea of framing this as "construction is optional" is a good one, but the expression
of it proposed in JEP 401 feels "not quite there". In this note I'll propose an
alternative presentation, but the main goal here is around terminology and user model rather than
syntax (so please keep the syntax agitation to a reasonable level.)
The key distinction between B2 and B3 is that B3 has a _default value_ which
the VM can summon at will. This enables non-nullable heap variables to be
flattened, because we can initialize these the same way we initialize other
fields and array elements. Further, that default value is highly constrained;
it is a physical zero, the result of initializing all fields to their default
value.
Flattening is of course a goal, but it is not something that exists in the
programming model -- its just an optimization. What exists in the programming
model is the default value, and what this unlocks is the possibility for
variables to be _implicitly initializated_. Reference-typed variables today
are _explicitly initialized_; variables start out null and have to be
initialized with a constructed value. A class with a default value has the
option (opted in through null-exclusion) for its variables to be implicitly
initialized, which, like primitives, means that they start out with a valid
default value, and can be further assigned to.
Framed this way, the Valhalla performance story simplifies to:
- Give up identity, get flattening on the stack;
- Further give up explicit initialization, get flattening for small objects
on the heap;
- Further give up atomicity, get flattening for larger objects on the heap.
Giving up explicit initialization entails both the class opting out of explicit
initialization, _and_ the variable opting out of nullity.
The key new terminology that comes out of this is implicit vs explicit
initialization.
Syntactically, my preference is to indicate that the default value can be
summoned by giving a value class a _default constructor_:
value class Complex {
public final double re, im;
public default Complex();
}
A default constructor has no arguments, no body, no throws clause, and implicitly initializes all
fields to their default values. Unlike identity classes, value classes don't get constructions
implicitly; a value class must declare at least one constructor, default or otherwise. This
replaces the idea of "optional constructor", which is a negative statement about
construction ("but you don't have to call me"), with a more direct and positive statement
that there is a _default constructor_ with the required properties.
Note that this is similar to the existing concept of "default constructor", which you get
for free in an identity class if you don't specify any constructors. It is possible we can unify
these features (and also with constructors in "agnostic" abstract classes), but first
let's work out what it would mean in value classes, and see if we like it.
In this model, a B3 class is just a value class with a default constructor -> a
default constructor means that you have the choice of implicit or explicit
initialization -> non-nullity at the use site opts into implicit initialization ->
B3! gets flattening (for small layouts.)
