RFR : JDK-8001642 : Add Optional<T>, OptionalDouble, OptionalInt, OptionalLong
brian.goetz at oracle.com
Fri Mar 15 06:46:48 PDT 2013
Wouldn't the minimal change NOT have a predicate, to match the existing
form of findFirst?
T findFirst(T orElse)
On 3/15/2013 7:31 AM, Doug Lea wrote:
> On 03/15/13 06:26, Joe Bowbeer wrote:
>> I think your point that Optional and non-Optional forms of reduce are
>> provided is significant.
>> I noticed that your proposed versions of findFirst and findAny have a
>> argument, but the Optional forms do not:
>> T findFirst(Predicate<? super T> predicate, T ifNone);
>> Why is this?
> It's in the spirit of proposing a minimal change. The predicate
> form suffices for all Optional-avoiding search stuff. To reduce
> impact by another 50%, it would suffice to ONLY include the "any" form.
> T findAny(Predicate<? super T> predicate, T ifNone);
More information about the lambda-libs-spec-experts