A disclaimer or two for Optional

[Tim Peierls]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com>wrote:
>
> They are more likely to behave, but the special pleading has two
> motivations, only one of which is addressed above:
>  - discourage users from doing wrong things
>  - provide cover so that when we break code that does wrong things, they
> were adequately warned

...

In a perfect world, the visitor from Flatland would show up and lay the
> entire future out for us.  We're a few days from Public Review; we're in
> "better than nothing" territory here.
>

Isn't this a little like putting a warning about the dangers of addictive
drugs only on the methadone because you don't have time to post general
warnings about the harder drugs? Optional users are already in treatment.
There's not much cover if you have to say, "You should have read the
warning we clearly posted in the rehab clinic," to users still on the
street.

If it would take more time to *not* add this disclaimer, then never mind.
Otherwise, there are better uses of the few days remaining.

--tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-libs-spec-experts/attachments/20131023/441518a1/attachment.html