[foreign-memaccess] RFR 8228444: Add common value layout constants

[Maurizio Cimadamore]

Yeah - I thought about that too - but then you are in a place where you 
have VALUE_8 which is very generic (what is the thing we have 8 of?), 
and then something very specific like JAVA_INT living in the same place.

If passable, I'll go for the BITS option, which is the one I find less 
offensive (the VALUE term is another one which is overloaded - see 
Valhalla which moved away from it and went to "inline").

Of course we're deep in bikeshed territory here, the names are not set 
in stone, and I expect them to change another 10-20 times :-)

Thanks
Maurizio

On 19/07/2019 18:55, Jorn Vernee wrote:
> Ah, I see :) - Could also spell it out fully, perhaps that is most 
> unambiguous:
>
>    `VALUE_8_BE`
>
> Jorn
>
> On 2019-07-19 19:42, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
>> On 19/07/2019 18:22, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>>> I'm not sure I love the names either... 'BYTE_X_BE' seems to 
>>> reminiscent of a Java (or C) byte. How about `V8_BE`, `V16_LE`, 
>>> etc... ('V' standing for 'Value')?
>>
>> On this - I have some preconceived aversion to the letter V. As soon
>> as I see it I think "void". I think I've read too much bytecode :-)
>>
>> But that's why I was trying to avoid it.
>>
>> Maurizio