> > ok, the Brian Goetz responded to these concerns: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-dev/2012-October/006365.html > > The JDK perspective makes sense now. These guys are definitely super smart > guys. >
Probably I am missing something, but what I read is just: "the goal is NOT to create an option monad or solve the problems that the option monad is intended to solve". So Goetz stated what the Optional class is NOT and I could be fine with it. But I don't see any mention about what the Optional class IS or is supposed to be. Looking at this example http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-dev/2012-September/005952.html it seems that its only purpose is to avoid an additional variable. Does the Optional scope end here? Please tell me that there is more! I also disagree about the ADT thing. It is not only a pattern matching matter: having a None and a Some class extending Optional results in a better design and a better API. Mario -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/GwH4pzEsrg4J. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
