Equality for values -- new analysis, same conclusion

[Brian Goetz]

In Q world, we derived:

    V implements I 
   -----------------------
    box(V) <: I

which is a credible interpretation.  So if we wanted to have a box-centric interpretation, we could go back to that.  But, in terms of where we want to go, “values are objects”, and “== is same-value”, is a better place to land, even if the road is rockier in the short run.

> On Aug 11, 2019, at 7:27 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Agree on the analysis - in a world where values ARE objects, == needs to mean the right thing. Any other answer will be seen as trickery.
> 
> On 09/08/2019 16:46, Brian Goetz wrote:
>> The alternate route to preserving a narrower definition of == is to say that_at the language level_, values are not subtypes of Object.  Then, we can credibly say that the eclair companion type is the box, and there is a boxing conversion between V and I (putting the cream in the eclair is like putting it in a box.)  This may seem like a huge step backwards, but it actually is a consistent world, and in this world, boxing is a super-lightweight operation.  The main concern here is that when a user assigns a value to an object/interface type, and then invokes Object.getClass(), they will see the value class — which perhaps we can present as “the runtime box is so light that you can’t even see it.”
> 
> We have discussed this at the EG meeting in Santa Clara two weeks ago - IIRC the conclusion there was that, since values can implement interfaces, it would be odd for values not to subtype same interfaces; and Object is really just another kind of interface.
> 
> FWIW, I too sense that subtyping is 'boxing' us in (and have been in favor of finding ways to cut that particular knot) - but I realize the above argument is also very strong.
> 
> Maurizio
>