generic specialization design discussion

[Kevin Bourrillion]

I'd suggest the name should in some way allude to the inline/compact/flat
memory layout, because that is the distinguishing feature of *these new
things* compared to anything else you can do in Java. And it is what people
should be thinking about as they decide whether a new class should use this.


On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 10:02 AM Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

> The slide deck contains a list of terminology.  I’d like to posit that the
> most confusion-reducing thing we could do is come up with another word for
> value types/classes/instances, since the word “value” is already used to
> describe primitives and references themselves.  This is a good time to see
> if there are better names available.
>
> So for this thread only, we’re turning on the syntax light to discuss what
> might be a better name for the abstraction currently known as “value
> classes”.
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > This week I gave some presentations of my current thinking
> > about specializations to people (from Oracle and IBM) gathered
> > in Burlington.  Here it is FTR.  If you read it you will find lots
> > of questions, as well as requirements and tentative answers.
> >
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/pres/201903-TemplateDesign.pdf
> >
> > This is a checkpoint.  I have more tentative answers on the
> > drawing board that didn't fit into the slide deck.  Stay tuned.
> >
> > — John
>
>

-- 
Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kevinb at google.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/valhalla-spec-experts/attachments/20190408/d2e33adf/attachment.html>