<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Aren't these constructors chained? I believe it is quite common
practice to use nulls when calling a chained constructor to get a
default for that parameter. If a certain type of convenience
constructor is missing, a caller can pass in `null` for the
parameter they'd like defaulted. It's not too far-fetched to
allow this **if** there is a constructor where this parameter is
omitted and is assigned a default.<br>
<br>
If anything, the constructors IMHO should document that for
certain parameters passing in `null` results in a specific
default.<br>
</p>
<p>--John<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/08/2025 19:46, Nir Lisker wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+0ynh-tjJ5DjKPiNkDEBO4xDD144YQrg+t3QpQewZZabM7Vqg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Hi all,<br>
<br>
In DateTimeStringConverter, NumberStringConverter, and their
subclasses, null parameters sent to the constructors are
internally converted to default values. This is not specified,
but it's how the implementation behaves. I'm working on some
changes there and was thinking about changing the behavior to
throw NPEs as it makes no sense to pass null into these and it's
probably a bug more than anything.
<div><span
style="background-color:rgb(0,128,0);color:rgb(18,144,195);font-family:Consolas;font-size:11pt;white-space:pre"></span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The LocalDate/Time converters specified the null-friendly
behavior in their docs even though it doesn't make much sense
there either.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Are we allowed to change this?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Nir</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>