RFR:JDK-8198749 Translation of value constructors in classic constructor notation (original) (raw)
John Rose john.r.rose at oracle.com
Fri Jul 13 07:52:37 UTC 2018
- Previous message (by thread): RFR:JDK-8198749 Translation of value constructors in classic constructor notation
- Next message (by thread): RFR:JDK-8198749 Translation of value constructors in classic constructor notation
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I upvoted it. Don’t let it derail more important work, though!
On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:39 PM, Srikanth <srikanth.adayapalam at oracle.com> wrote:
On Thursday 12 July 2018 08:47 AM, John Rose wrote: On Jul 11, 2018, at 6:08 PM, Brian Goetz <Brian.Goetz at Oracle.COM> wrote: I think we will end up with some user-level syntax for referring to a VT's default value by name. Something like
VT.default
. It would compile directly to a defaultvalue instruction. Perhaps via a tree that strongly resembles a global constant reference in VT. Hmm, nice how all that hangs together… T.default is what we used in Model 3. Yeah; I think it's probably safe to add to current prototypes. Not hard to change if we decide to do something else later. If that is a definite requirement, please say so on https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8207168 and I will follow up. Thanks Srikanth
- Previous message (by thread): RFR:JDK-8198749 Translation of value constructors in classic constructor notation
- Next message (by thread): RFR:JDK-8198749 Translation of value constructors in classic constructor notation
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]