A disclaimer or two for Optional

[Joshua Bloch]

Brian,


On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

> OK, here's some of the background you may be missing.
>
> "A future version of Java" will almost certainly have support for "value
> types", "user-defined primitives", "identity-less aggregates", "structs",
> or whatever you would like to call them.  Without making promises or
> projections or even going into anTy details, this is high on the priority
> list, and some nontrivial analysis has already been done on what it might
> look like and what the migration compatibility concerns would be.
>

That's great because, frankly, Java's type system is way too simple.  I'm
glad you guys are investigating ways to make it more complex, and to
provide additional ways to do things that people are already doing. This
will keep Java programmers on their toes, which, frankly, is just what they
need.

Josh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-libs-spec-experts/attachments/20131019/50e31e67/attachment.html