for review: 8236522: "always atomic" modifier for inline classes to enforce atomicity

[Brian Goetz]

While this makes sense (references to identity objects are 
non-tearable), I'm not sure that is what the users will actually take 
away from what you propose.  If a user sees the equivalent of:

```
class Point implements NonTearable {
     int x;
     int y;
}
```

this is pretty easy to misinterpret.  And, unlike IdentityObject, I 
don't really see the static type ever being used as a type (e.g., `<T 
extends NonTearable>`.) Non-tearability is a low-level thing; attaching 
it to identity classes makes that harder to see.

On 3/7/2020 6:18 PM, John Rose wrote:
> I’d like to
> suggest that IdentityObject implements NonTearable, so that
> bounds like Record & NonTearable allow identity and inline
> objects.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/valhalla-spec-experts/attachments/20200309/ccc41df8/attachment.htm>