-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 176
8387417: [lworld] API doc improvements for java.lang.Object #2588
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
AlanBateman
wants to merge
9
commits into
openjdk:lworld
Choose a base branch
from
AlanBateman:Clone
base: lworld
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+257
−46
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
4a23687
Initial commit
AlanBateman 4ee613e
Merge branch 'lworld' into Clone
AlanBateman 7889c7d
More improvements
AlanBateman a56b3e3
More improvements
AlanBateman 064fb54
More word smithing
AlanBateman 780a704
Fix finalize spec
AlanBateman 5a280a9
Adjust timeout
AlanBateman 73f5445
Merge branch 'lworld' into Clone
AlanBateman dbc626a
Use statewise equivalent consistently
AlanBateman File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hello Alan, in several other places in the other JDK, we seem to refer to such classes as concrete value class. Should we do the same here instead of saying non-abstract value class?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Defining a value object as an instance of non-abstract value classes works here, it's similar to the wording in the changes for the JLS.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would prefer to phrase it like "the class of a value object is a value class", more in line with code like
o.getClass().isValue().However, Valhalla models "identity" as the extra thing, so I guess it is better to go like "An identity object is an object whose class is an identity class or an array type. All other objects are value objects."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would prefer to keep this sentence as proposed as it keeps it consistent with the JLS and keeps the ordering that the terms are introduces consistent with the first sentence. I would be a bit wary of "All other objects are value objects" as it hints that there are other things that are also value classes.