Equality for values -- new analysis, same conclusion

Time to take another look at equality, now that we’ve simplified away the LFoo/QFoo distinction. This mail focuses on the language notion of equality (==) only. Let’s start with the simplest case, the ==(V,V) operator. There is a range of possible interpretations: - Not allowed; the compiler treats == as not applicable to operands of type V. (Note that since V <: Object, == may still be called upon to have an opinion about two Vs whose static types are Object or interface.) - Allowed, but always false. (This appeals to a concept of “aggressive reboxing”, where a value is reboxed between every pair of byte codes.) - Weak substitutability. This is where we make a “good faith” attempt to treat equal points as equal, but there are cases (such as those where a value hides behind an Object/interface) where two otherwise equal objects might report not equal. This would have to appeal to some notion of invisible boxing, where sometimes two boxes for the same value are not equal. - Substitutability. This is where we extend == field wise over the fields of the object, potentially recursively. As noted above, we don’t only have to define ==V, but ==Object when there may be a value hiding behind the object. It might be acceptable, though clearly weird, for two values that are ==V to not be ==Object when viewed as Objects. However, the only way this might make sense to users is if this were appealing to a boxing conversion, and its hard to say there’s a boxing conversion from V to Object when V <: Object. There is a gravitational force that says that if two values are V==, then they should still be == when viewed as Object or Comparable. Let’s take a look at the use cases for Object==. - Direct identity comparison. This is used for objects that are known to be interned (such as interned strings or Enum constants), as well as algorithms that want to compare objects by identity. such as IdentityHashMap. (When the operands are of generic (T) or dynamic (Object) type, the “Interned” case is less credible, but the other cases are still credible.) - As a fast path for deeper equality comparisons (a == b || a.equals(b)), since the contract of equals() requires that == objects are equals(). - In comparing references against null. - In comparing references against a known sentinel value, such as a value already observed, or a sentinel value provided by the user. When generics are specialized, T== will specialize too, so when T specializes to a value, we will get V==, and when T is erased, we will get Object==. Suptyping is a powerful constraint; it says that a value is-a Object. While it is theoretically possible to say that v1==v2 does not imply that ((Object)v1 == (Object) v2), I think we’ll have a very hard time suggesting this with a straight face. (If, instead, the conversion from value to Object were a straight boxing conversion, this would become credible.) Which says to me that if we define == on values at all, then it must be consistent with == on object or interface types. Similarly, the fact that we want to migrate erased generics to specialized, where T== will degenerate to V== on specialization, suggests that having Object== and V== be consistent is a strong normalizing force. Having == not be allowed on values at all would surely be strange, since == is (mostly) a substitutibilty test on primitives, and values are supposed to “work like an int.” And, even if we disallowed == on values, one could always cast the value to an Object, and compare them. While this is not an outright indefensible position, it is going to be an uncomfortable one. Having V== always be false still does not seem like something we can offer with a straight face, again, citing “works like an int.” Having V== be “weak substitutability” is possible, but I don’t think it would make the VM people happy anyway. Most values won’t require recursive comparisons (since most fields of value types will be statically typed as primitives, refs, or values), but much of the cost is in having the split at all. Note too that treating == as substitutibility means use cases such as IdentityHashMap will just work as expected, with no modification for a value-full world. So if V <: Object, it feels we are still being “boxed” into the corner that == is a substitutability test. But, in generic / dynamically typed code, we are likely to discourage broad use of Object==, since the most common case (fast path comparison) is no long as fast as it once was. We have a few other options to mitigate the performance concerns here: - Live with legacy ACMP anomalies; - Re-explore a boxing relationship between V and Object. If we say that == is substitutability, we still have the option to translate == to something other than ACMP. Which means that existing binaries (and likely, binaries recompiled with —source 8) will still use ACMP. If we give ACMP the “false if value” interpretation, then existing classifies (which mostly use == as a fast-path check) will still work, as those tests should be backed up with .equals(), though they may suffer performance changes on recompilation. This is an uncomfortable compromise, but is worth considering. Down this route, ACMP has a much narrower portfolio, as we would not use it in translating most Object== unless we were sure we were dealing with identityful types. The alternate route to preserving a narrower definition of == is to say that _at the language level_, values are not subtypes of Object. Then, we can credibly say that the eclair companion type is the box, and there is a boxing conversion between V and I (putting the cream in the eclair is like putting it in a box.) This may seem like a huge step backwards, but it actually is a consistent world, and in this world, boxing is a super-lightweight operation. The main concern here is that when a user assigns a value to an object/interface type, and then invokes Object.getClass(), they will see the value class — which perhaps we can present as “the runtime box is so light that you can’t even see it.” Where this world runs into more trouble is with specialized generics; we’d like to treat specialized Foo<T> as being generic in “T extends Object”, which subsumes values. This complicates things like bound computation and type inference, and also makes invoking Object methods trickier, since we have to do some sort of reasoning by parts (which we did in M3, but didn’t like it.) tl;dr: if we want a unified type system where values are objects, then I think we have to take the obvious semantics for ==, and if we want to reduce the runtime impact on _old_ binaries, we should consider whether giving older binaries older semantics, and taking the discontinuity as the cost of unification.