alternatives or complements to layers

Mohamed M. El-Beltagy melbeltagy at
Wed Jan 7 19:07:34 UTC 2015

Terribly sorry for wasting your time with the previous email. I just read Ron Pressler’s thread. Kindly accept my apologize.

     On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 9:55 PM, Mohamed M. El-Beltagy <melbeltagy at> wrote:


Dear all. Kindly bear with me for just five minutes.
I think that I really have to ask this question at this inappropriate timing. Inappropriate cause Alan Bateman stated; implicitly of course; to move on and start testing the proposed solution instead of wasting time discussing alternatives. Which is a decision I highly respect for its timing.
But yet, reading all these emails, 100+ in just couple of days, I feel that I must ask.
The question simply is: Why not change primitives on the language level so that they would be special objects? Meaning, they would fall back to be an object.
Benefits? I would dare to say the following:
- No changes on the language itself. i.e., no need to introduce the type "any". Unless of course; I missed other objective other than Generics.- All issues rose during this specific thread regarding APIs' and backward compatibility would simply vanish.
- If all primitives are at the end objects; Generics will work like a charm.I don't want to waste more of your time reading the benefits I can think of; I'm sure you'll find even more than I can.
Disadvantages? At the top of my head is auto boxing behavior and figuring out a way to differentiate between them.

Thank you very much for your time reading this email and at the same time; kindly accept my apologize if you feel that I wasted your time.


More information about the valhalla-dev mailing list