Value types - compatibility with existing “value objects”

[Brian Goetz]

> How would the box be created in this case? Would it be a "view" over
> the memory range covered by biggie inside the Foo instance?

These would be invisible to you, just like 99% of the representational 
decisions the VM makes on your behalf with all sorts of other things 
(e.g., field layout).  For some extreme cases, we expose tuning flags, 
but that is definitely not our default.

> I'm not even sure it's a good idea (at least for v1) to make any
> promises around tearing/atomicity of value types.

Not an option.  There are security implications around structure tearing 
that we can't brush under the rug.