On 7 Oct 2015, at 10:30, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@joda.org> wrote:
> On 7 October 2015 at 01:13, Stuart Marks <stuart.ma...@oracle.com> wrote: >> My question is, is this enough of a problem that we should allow nulls in >> these collections? I would prefer not to do this, but if there is evidence >> that this would be a mistake, I'd like to hear it. >> >> And if disallowing nulls will cause developers to create things like >> Map<K,Optional<V>>, are we ok with that, and are developers ok with that? > > Given what we know now vs when the collections library ws created, I > think it would be a mistake to allow nulls. Developers that > desperately want null in there have other mechanisms to achieve that, > not just Optional. I agree with this. These are, after all, “just convenience” methods, there are other ways if null is required. I do not see any compelling reason for allowing null, given the type of use case these methods are trying address, collections and maps with small numbers of elements. > I too would argue against Optional in collections, > at least until value types exist, but thats a social discussion, not > one that can be controlled. > > Stephen -Chris.
