Loose ends: Optional

[Tim Peierls]

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

> Proposed spec for methods on Optional, which would have the obvious
> counterparts in Optional{Int,Long,Double}.
>
> These methods are known to be useful and seem mostly harmless now that
> other things have settled.  (I don't think they greatly increase the moral
> hazard of Optional in general, and they do make it more expressive.)
>

I'm in the curious (unique?) position of both desperately wanting Optional
and desperately *not* wanting lots of additional methods like these. If the
price of having Optional is the presence of these methods, I'll suck it up,
but "mostly harmless" is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

--tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-libs-spec-experts/attachments/20130524/aac925c2/attachment.html