bye stable values, enter lazy constants

[Sergey Bylokhov]

On 10/2/25 01:17, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:

> Yep. Thinking more about this, if we ever did the idea you suggested the
> other day (e.g. declaring static fields inside a method), then you could
> have tighter scoping
> 
> e.g.
> 
> ```
> Logger getLogger() {
>      static LazyConstant<Logger> LOGGER = LazyConstant.of(...);
>      return LOGGER.get();
> }
> ```
> 
> (Now, while I think it's useful to have static _classes_ inside a
> method, I think having a static field in there might be a bit confusing,
> as it looks like a local variable, but isn't really -- it's a field. So
> whether that's a good idea or not will have to be assessed separately)


Note that using LazyConstant in the example above is actually unnecessary, a simpler version works 
just as well:

Logger getLogger() {
    static Logger LOGGER = ...;
    return LOGGER;
}

So, if there are any plans to implement this in the future, we should ensure it does not duplicate 
what LazyConstant provides. It is possible that the new static local variables combined with the new 
VarHandle access modes will cover most use cases or we can fit LazyConstant somewhere in between.

-- 
Best regards, Sergey.