Draft LW2 spec

[Dan Smith]

> On Jun 14, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> There are a few "design discussion" blocks that identify areas that may evolve further (in LW3, say) or where the design choices we've settled on aren't necessarily essential.
> 
> Here's a few more:
> 
>  - The ACC_INLINE bit may well go away if we settle on a RefObject / ValObject hierarchy; then a class is an inline class iff it extends ValObject.  (In the current formulation, I think you want to add in INLINE -> !INTERFACE too.)

I'm a little skeptical (compare usage of ACC_ENUM, even though Java enforces that the superclass is java.lang.Enum), but, yes, I can mention that the flag isn't the only possible way to encode the information.

(Thanks for catching the ACC_INTERFACE interaction, which I'll fix.)

>  - NullFreeClassType may prefer to be called something else; this is the "new contract" story John is working on.  And some "new contract" types may be nullable as well, if we go forward with the null-default story.

Yes, that's a bigger, more open-ended discussion than I want to squeeze into a box, but I can add something to suggest the null-free/nullable barrier may evolve in the future.