On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 27/04/16 11:51, Vitaly Davidovich wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > >> On 27/04/16 00:38, Vitaly Davidovich wrote: > >>> I've yet to hear one supporter on this thread besides yourself and > >> Stuart. > >> > >> Do you really want to turn this discussion into even more of a > >> bikeshed discussion? > > > > Not at all. Simply saying I find this proposal odd, and I didn't get the > > feeling I'm alone by reading the other responses here. > > You're not alone, but not everyone should chime in. Now that I'm > here I have to say that deprecating bad names is an excellent > thing to do, and what enhanced deprecation should be doing.
Sure, but there's no agreement it's a bad name to begin with. It's a fine name, with precedent, and avoids visual noise when used as intended. Optional has something like a dozen methods with very simple javadoc - if a developer misused it, they'll learn and move on. There's really no issue here at all, as far as I'm concerned. I understand Brian and Stuart's thinking, but it's not addressing any real issue, IMO. > > Andrew. > > -- Sent from my phone
