Could the idea of null-default inline classes be revisited?

[Mateusz Romanowski]

Sounds cool - can't wait on learning Java syntax.

I'll stay tuned for other developments.

/Mateusz

On Friday, May 8, 2020, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 2020, at 2:57 PM, Mateusz Romanowski <
romanowski.mateusz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> accessibility of V.val and V.ref is same
>
> That’s not necessarily true.  It’s possible, at least in the JVM,
> for one type to be less public than the other.  They are necessarily
> in the same package and module, but can independently be
> package-private or public, to the JVM.  We are working out
> language details on this, so stay tuned.  The idea of making
> V.ref more public than V.val is related to the idea of giving
> the “good name” V to one or the other type; you might want
> Optional to be public and mean Optional.ref, while Optional.val
> is private, if for some reason you wanted to conceal the new
> inline aspect.  (I don’t think we do in the case of Optional,
> but you get the idea:  A type might be publicly ref-flavored,
> with a hidden val aspect.  The other way around seems
> less useful to me, but who knows.)
> And still, a friendlier solution would be to allow both to be public
> but “hook” the conversion, relative to null, in the way we
> discussed.  That’s a future discussion.
> — John