Optional -> OptionalResult

[Ted Neward]

*NEVER* had that reaction from anyone, when showing them home-grown Optional
types (in a variety of different in-house Java libraries).

Ted Neward
Leading, Speaking, Consulting, Writing
http://www.tedneward.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lambda-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:lambda-dev-
> bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Zhong Yu
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:26 PM
> To: Clayton Wohl
> Cc: lambda-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: Optional -> OptionalResult
> 
> "Option" sounds like the producer has a choice, it can choose to produce
> something or nothing based on some private/undisclosed reasons. That
> connotation may mislead people into using it for the wrong reasons, e.g.
as
> input type.
> 
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Clayton Wohl <claytonwohl at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Why would "Map<Optional<List<Optional<String>>>" be more of a
> concern
> > than any other ridiculous combination of generics nesting? How about
> > List<Vector<Stack<AtomicReference<ThreadLocal<Integer>>>>>?
> >
> > Usually, devs don't nest optionals inside of lists/maps. I'm sure it
> > will happen in some edge case, but in the Scala code or the Functional
> > Java code bases I've worked in, people do not do that, just like they
> > don't do lots of other crazy combinations of generics that are
> > technically possible in Java 5+.
> >
> > For the name, I like Option/Optional, however, that's a relatively
> > minor detail and I will be happy with whatever the JDK team chooses.
> >
> > Stephen, the reasoning for an Optional type with map/flatMap/forEach
> > functionality is very convincing and I don't believe it's appeal is
> > limited to elite FP experts, which I am definitely not. I've seen lots
> > of junior Java devs appreciate the same functionality in Functional
> > Java. Your opposition to this does not seem to have a grounding in
reason.
> >
> > BTW, the new date/time library you've worked on looks amazing. I've
> > been using the plug-in version in my personal projects for years, and
> > I am excited to see it broadly adopted into the core JDK 8.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne at
> > joda.org> wrote:
> >> Optional is, and will continue to be, a key debating point for those
> >> arguing for more FP. The pressure to make it more powerful will
> >> continue, especially given similar named features in other languages.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile I continue to fear Map<Optional<List<Optional<String>>> and
> >> the like. The generics type system in Java simply isn't good enough
> >> to be doing anything like that, even if it were remotely desirable.
> >