> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:46 PM, Kevin Bourrillion <kev...@google.com> wrote: > > My reason for complaining here is not just about the java.time types > themselves, but to argue that this is an important 4th bucket we should be > concerned about. In some ways it is a bigger problem that Bucket #3 "no good > default", since it is an actively harmful default. > > For all of these types, there is one really fantastic default value that does > everything you would want it to do: null. That is why these types should not > become inline types, or certainly not val-default inline types, and why Error > Prone will have to ban usage of `.val` if they do.
Appreciate the thoughts, this is definitely relevant. For the purpose of this discussion, I'd say you're arguing for these classes to move to Bucket #3. Because then the question becomes, just like for the other classes there: do we use the Bucket #3 strategies to support these as inline classes, or do we give up and leave them as identity classes?
