RFR 8080418 Add Optional.or()

[Paul Sandoz]

> On 26 Sep 2015, at 10:32, Tagir F. Valeev <amaembo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello!
> 
>>> Quite interesting and long awaited features (at least according to
>>> StackOverflow questions).
> 
> PS> All of them? or just the first?
> 
> The first one is definitely the most requested feature. However,
> additional methods for primitive optionals were requested at least
> twice:
> http://stackoverflow.com/q/29104968/4856258
> http://stackoverflow.com/q/23414903/4856258
> 

> Something like mapOrElseGet was implicitly requested here
> (though it's more look like ifPresentOrElse)
> http://stackoverflow.com/q/23773024/4856258
> 

Thanks.


>>> Isn't it a good idea to provide also a way
>>> to transfer between Optional types like "mapToInt", "mapToObj", etc.,
>>> like it's done in Stream API?
>>> 
> 
> PS> I don’t wanna go there, my response is transform Optional* into a
> PS> *Stream. An argument for adding mapOrElseGet (notice that the
> PS> primitive variants return U) is that other functionality can be composed from it.
> 
> Probably then it's better instead of adding map, filter, etc. just add
> single "boxed()" method to convert OptionalDouble to Optional<Double>,
> etc.? So if somebody really wants to chain optional calls, let them do
> the boxing and use the features of normal Optional.
> 

Some degree of parity will i think avoid confusion, but I was also pondering a boxed method, independent of the map/filter etc, if the more general usage (map.orElseGet, mapOrElseGet/fold) proves too difficult.

I think it’s fine to to pollute OptionalInt etc with Optional but i want to avoid it for the other direction.

Paul.