Not yet again !

[forax at univ-mlv.fr]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Goetz" <brian.goetz at oracle.com>
> To: "Remi Forax" <forax at univ-mlv.fr>, "valhalla-spec-experts" <valhalla-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net>
> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2023 5:28:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Not yet again !

>> Last year, we stop to use interfaces IdentityObject and ValueObject to specify
>> value/identity-ness.
>> LooselyConsistentValue exhibits exactly the same bad behaviors as those
>> interfaces.
> 
> I think if you work through the details, you'll find that it is not the
> *exact* same set of behaviors.
> 
> Which is the problem with arguments like this: "X is like Y, and Y
> didn't work -> X won't work" are only superficially satisfying. Could
> you work through your argument with more details, and with less "we did
> that before and it failed"?  Because the reasons I recall for pulling
> back on {Identity,Value}Object don't seem to apply here.  There may be
> new, different arguments that do apply, but you'll have to make them
> more directly...

You may find easier to answer to a direct question:

Why do you want the tearability of a nullable value type, which is an implementation detail, to be part of the type system ?

regards,
Rémi