Maurizio Cimadamore maurizio.cimadamore at
Mon Jun 26 23:24:02 UTC 2017

Looks good - I noted you have removed the caching - that's probably ok 
since unbox is cached anyway, but dunno if filterReturnValue is costly 
(does that go through lambda form editor?) -  and whether it would make 
sense to cache that too.


On 26/06/17 22:23, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> Updated:
> <>
> Paul.
>> On 26 Jun 2017, at 10:46, Paul Sandoz <Paul.Sandoz at 
>> <mailto:Paul.Sandoz at>> wrote:
>> Hi Maurizio,
>> It’s not naive, that code reflected a reduction on some hacking in an 
>> attempt to also explore construction with a default constructor 
>> (there is also a disconnect here between the VCC with a constructor 
>> and using vdefault with DVT). I think we should keep the constructor 
>> method and implement it as you suggest with a combinator. I’ll send 
>> out a simplified webrev.
>> Separately, in my enthusiasm i may be going down a rabbit hole 
>> regarding re-construction, arguably it’s not in the spirit of 
>> minimal. Still at some point i think we should explore this notion of 
>> a more extensible wither for value types (but it also seems 
>> application to ref/data classes too).
>> Paul.
>>> On 23 Jun 2017, at 16:31, Maurizio Cimadamore 
>>> <maurizio.cimadamore at 
>>> <mailto:maurizio.cimadamore at>> wrote:
>>> Maybe a naive question - but do you need method handle builder (and 
>>> extra bytecode spinning) for constructor? Can't we combine the 
>>> result of findConstructor on the boxed class with the vunbox MH?
>>> Maurizio

More information about the valhalla-dev mailing list