> >> That certainly doesn't prevent anybody else from trying to find a > >> compromise :-) > > > It feels like Optionals could be a compromise. > > I must admit I've lost track of the later discussion threads. If you > mean that we'd return Optional<> results, this would become an entirely > different API. >
It certainly does. And I personally don't think it's the best course of action at this stage - unless someone is eager to work on a new major version. But if you look for a compromise it seem to be the only one acceptable to both "camps". I'd very much like us to get to a compromise that helps our users and > doesn't force us to randomly fix RuntimeExceptions that slipped through > overly optimistic parser code. > Well, I am fine with the solution you proposed :) cheers, Torsten
