2016-04-27 19:43 GMT+02:00 Maurizio Cimadamore <maurizio.cimadam...@oracle.com>: > > > On 27/04/16 09:31, Andrew Haley wrote: >> >> what they say makes >> sense to me > > It makes sense to me to. Having an innocently-named get() method throwing an > exception is not something you see everyday. And in this case it's doubly > confusing because one could imagine also a different behavior (i.e. return > null if no object is there). So I'm in favor for making things clearer by > choosing a more explicit name (whether the proposed one or a better one).
This thread looks funny, so I chime in too. +1 for the change overall, I really do like when methods are self explanatory and I don't need to read the manual ;) But please consider the getWhenPresent sounds to me like it's trying to suggest that the method would block and returns *when* the value is present, not sure if it's just me and the fact that I'm not native english speaker though. Cheers, Mario -- pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF Java Champion - Blog: http://neugens.wordpress.com - Twitter: @neugens Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ Please, support open standards: http://endsoftpatents.org/
