Could the idea of null-default inline classes be revisited?
romanowski.mateusz at gmail.com
Fri May 8 22:00:23 UTC 2020
Sounds cool - can't wait on learning Java syntax.
I'll stay tuned for other developments.
On Friday, May 8, 2020, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 2020, at 2:57 PM, Mateusz Romanowski <
romanowski.mateusz at gmail.com> wrote:
> accessibility of V.val and V.ref is same
> That’s not necessarily true. It’s possible, at least in the JVM,
> for one type to be less public than the other. They are necessarily
> in the same package and module, but can independently be
> package-private or public, to the JVM. We are working out
> language details on this, so stay tuned. The idea of making
> V.ref more public than V.val is related to the idea of giving
> the “good name” V to one or the other type; you might want
> Optional to be public and mean Optional.ref, while Optional.val
> is private, if for some reason you wanted to conceal the new
> inline aspect. (I don’t think we do in the case of Optional,
> but you get the idea: A type might be publicly ref-flavored,
> with a hidden val aspect. The other way around seems
> less useful to me, but who knows.)
> And still, a friendlier solution would be to allow both to be public
> but “hook” the conversion, relative to null, in the way we
> discussed. That’s a future discussion.
> — John
More information about the valhalla-dev