class, type, instance, object, value
forax at univ-mlv.fr
Wed Jul 12 14:49:54 UTC 2017
Usually the difference between a class and a type is more runtime vs compile time.
A type exist at compile time, a class exist at runtime.
A type at compile time which is propagated as a class at runtime is a reified type, etc...
----- Mail original -----
> De: "John Rose" <john.r.rose at oracle.com>
> À: "Bjorn B Vardal" <bjornvar at ca.ibm.com>
> Cc: valhalla-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net
> Envoyé: Lundi 26 Juin 2017 20:41:49
> Objet: Re: class, type, instance, object, value
> On Jun 26, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Bjorn B Vardal <bjornvar at ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> > value field: (ambig.) field whose type is a value type (in any kind of class) OR
>>> > a field in a value class (of any type)
>> If you want to resolve this ambiguity, I've been referring to the former as a
>> "value typed field" and the latter as a "value field".
> Yes, that can work where the context is strong enough to keep the reader alert.
> But a single letter 'd' is a slender hook to hang your meaning on, and its
> *absence* is even
> more delicate. Unless the context makes it very clear, I'd want to say "value
> class field",
> or "field in a value" (ellipsis for "value class") instead of "value field" as
> you suggest.
> (Remember, classes define fields, and then they show up in a type's API surface.
> So you can usually clarify "field of some type" to "field in some class" or
> "field of
> that type's class". And on the other hand "field with that type" or even "field
> of that
> type". The word "of" is treacherous here, and "in" and "with" are more
> In some cases you have to spit out even more words to be safe: "field within
> value type",
> "field that is a member of a value type", "field declared as a value type",
> "field whose type
> is a value type", etc., etc. Some of those circumlocutions benefit from
> ellipsis (which is
> "value" standing for "value type" with the "type" clear from context).
> Note that Java is already full of small ambiguities like this: "Interface
> field", "inner class field",
> "wrapper type field". Perhaps we could lean harder on the class-vs-type
> distinction: "Field of
> an interface type" is a "field typed as an interface (type)" whereas "Field of
> an interface class"
> is a "field declared in a class which defines an interface".
> (But we don't say "interface class" at this point, and it would be hard to get
> folks to accept it,
> even though it would clarify existing ambiguities about "class" meaning "class
> or interface or
> enum" in many places.)
> — John
More information about the valhalla-spec-experts