[lworld] RFR: 8247357: Flattenable field concept needs some cleanup

[Frederic Parain]

Sure, “is_allocated_inline” (the “d” at the end was a typo,
in the code example, it is written correctly).

Thank you,

Fred

> On Jun 10, 2020, at 16:23, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> On Jun 10, 2020, at 1:12 PM, Frederic Parain <frederic.parain at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>> John,
>> 
>> Thank you for looking at these changes.
>> 
>> “is_inline” might be confusing in the sense that it can be interpreted
>> as a property of the field layout. And “is_declared_inline” shares the
>> same issue (could be interpreter as a field modifier).
>> What the is_inline() methods really do, is to answer the question: 
>> is the type of this field an inline type? So, it’s a type question,
>> and not a layout question. And sometimes, we use is_inline to perform
>> checks that are not related to the layout, but to the properties of
>> the type (like null-freeness).
>> 
>> To prevent the confusion, I would propose to change “is_inline” to
>> “is_inline_type”, so the it would be obvious that the test is about
>> the type of the field.
>> 
>> And to have similar names, we would follow your suggestion and
>> rename “is_flattened” to “is_allocated_inlined"
>> 
>> So: 
>> 	if(fd->is_inline_type()) {        // -> clearly a type test
>> 
>> and
>>       if(fd->is_allocated_inline()) {   // -> clearly a layout test
>> 
>> 
>> Would these new names address the concerns you have?
> 
> Yes, that’s great.  Tiny tweak:  I suggest “is_allocated_inline”,
> or “is_inline_allocated” since the word “inline” can function
> as an adverb.  (I’m not sure, but I think you are suggesting
> “inlined” for “inline”.)
>