Optional class is just a Value

[Peter Levart]

On 09/19/2012 05:47 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Brian,
>
> I think the Optional class could be better named. I consider it a negative
> noun -- focusing on its ability to not contain a value. Really, it is
> nothing more than a bean for a value (and the value might be absent). It
> could have greater use than lambda so maybe it could be called something
> else.

I think that Optional was not meant to be used in API-s as the type of a 
method parameters or as the type of fields,  but only as the return type 
of methods with main usage pattern of calling it's methods in a chain. 
For that purpose, I think the name is fine.

And i think it is hoped that this will be the preferred use. If the 
Optional object is constructed late enough and discarded soon enough 
then method in-lining and escape analysis could optimize it's allocation 
on the stack (wishful thinking)...

>
> Lacking a better suggestion myself, I thought it should be called "Value"
> ... and, if you refactored into an interface, you could possibly retrofit
> the java.lang type wrappers to implement it too.

Huh, how would you do that?

What would the "not-present" Integer look like? Would it throw 
NullPointerException when calling .intValue()? ;-)

Regards, Peter
>
> Paul
>