Loose ends: Optional

Tim Peierls tim at peierls.net
Fri May 24 13:10:57 PDT 2013

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

> Proposed spec for methods on Optional, which would have the obvious
> counterparts in Optional{Int,Long,Double}.
> These methods are known to be useful and seem mostly harmless now that
> other things have settled.  (I don't think they greatly increase the moral
> hazard of Optional in general, and they do make it more expressive.)

I'm in the curious (unique?) position of both desperately wanting Optional
and desperately *not* wanting lots of additional methods like these. If the
price of having Optional is the presence of these methods, I'll suck it up,
but "mostly harmless" is not exactly a ringing endorsement.


More information about the lambda-libs-spec-observers mailing list