On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Josh Berry <tae...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Typing it, it occurs to me I could probably just skip the Option >> entirely (Right? That just drops the Some from the two cases I >> define.). > > > Yes, that was my reaction as well. There is little point in lifting a value > into Option and immediately pattern matching on it to process its value... > Like I said, it's basically a more contrived version of testing against > null.
I think my block here is that I don't think of pattern matching as a null check candidate. That, and I originally had aspirations of using this reference in a more traditional Option sense. Turned out not to be needed, so I opted for what I thought was the shorter code method. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
