hg: valhalla/valhalla/langtools: Add support for tracking 'any'-related opcodes

[Brian Goetz]

One of the open questions is whether we can, and should, try to stretch things so the existing wrapper classes can be the box types for the primitives (or, alternately, how much contortion would be required to enable this, and how much we give up.)  My personal gut feeling all along is that at some point, we’ll conclude that the existing wrappers are too hopelessly polluted, but I remain open-minded.  

When we know more we’ll share :)  

On Jul 24, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict at apache.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:33 PM, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:21 AM, Maurizio Cimadamore <
>> maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>> For now the designated box for a primitive (e.g., int) can be a wrapper
>> (java.lang.Integer).  In the real system, we have discussed building new
>> box types for this purpose (java.lang.'int', etc.).  (...Waving target type
>> magic at it, of course, to dispel compatibility bogies.)
>> 
>> 
> John, I'd like to hear more about that, if you're so inclined to share. It
> peeks my interest because new box types were part of my poor-man proposal
> on the platform-jep-discuss list. I was thinking the new types would be
> pure singletons while the current wrappers would continue to be prototypes.
> Additionally, if desired, both sets of wrappers could share a common
> interface for programming ease too. Is that at all similar to what you're
> internally discussing?
> 
> Paul