On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 11:03:07 GMT, Andrew Haley <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Yes, my comment was really on `get` - that said, I note that saying
>> get().get() would look odd (but maybe finding some other name for
>> `ScopedValue::get`, such as `find` might work)
>
> It certainly would look odd. This API is, by design, as lightweight as it
> possibly can be, both from an implementation and a user's point of view. It's
> also intended to be as close as possible to an "invisible" parameter passed
> to all callees. From that point of view, `get()` is a wart. `get().get()` is
> just...
IMHO there are ways to have the cake and eat it too. That is, we could have a
couple of overloads:
T get() { ... } // throws NSME if not found
Optional<T> find() // returns empty optional if not found
Then, for simple use cases, code will stay the same as today. But, if users
want to deal with optionality explicitly, they can call `find` and then call
`orElse`, `map` or whatever they like.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10952
