forax at univ-mlv.fr
Fri Sep 21 09:11:02 PDT 2012
On 09/21/2012 05:37 PM, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Remi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr
> <mailto:forax at univ-mlv.fr>> wrote:
> Support them is the only realistic option, there are too many
> codes out there that put null in collections, otherwise it will
> seriously impede the adoption of lambdas.
> You would think so, but take a look at how hard Guava is on nulls, and
> we pretty much get away with it.
> There are always plenty of strategies for fixing your code to not need
> to put nulls into collections, and most of them leave the code better off.
Let's say that streams will not support nulls.
My fear is that if a collection have a null in it, it will blow in the
middle of the process,
far away from where the error lies i.e. when null was added in the
To reuse the Josh moto, blow often, blow early, if you don't throw the
at the point where the mistake is made, throwing an exception in the
middle of the process
will be seen as something annoying instead as something that heps devs.
> I'm not taking a position on the issue, just saying the argument that
> we /have/ to support nulls doesn't hold water with me. So /what/ if it
> "impedes adoption" of lambdas a bit? Pleasing everyone all of the time
> isn't an option anyway.
More information about the lambda-libs-spec-observers