3 ms·

Optional#map is implemented incorrectly. someOptional.map(a).map(b) NOT EQUAL TO someOptional.map(a.andThen(b)

• dllthomas 10y ago
  Ah, that's unfortunate. Because of the order in which side effects occur, or is there something else as well? (I haven't Javaed in anger since before Optional).
  • premium-concern 10y ago
    Consider two functions (excuse my Scala): scala> val str: Function[String, String] = s => if (s.length > 3) s else null str: java.util.function.Function[String,String] = $$Lambda$1369/859456754@2c668c2a scala> val num: Function[String, Integer] = s => if (s == null) -1 else s.length num: java.util.function.Function[String,Integer] = $$Lambda$1376/1887041776@121cf6f4 With Optional, you receive different results depending on whether you call map twice, or combine the functions first: scala> Optional.of("Foo").map[String](str).map[Integer](num) res12: java.util.Optional[Integer] = Optional.empty scala> Optional.of("Foo").map[Integer](str.andThen(num)) res15: java.util.Optional[Integer] = Optional[-1] This is incorrect. (They decided to disallow null as Optional's value for whatever insane reason.) It also leads to all sort of weird usability issues: The old "`someMap.get(...)` returned null ... now does that mean the entry doesn't exist, or the entry exists and it is null?" In fact they are currently working on special hacks to Java 10's Generics, because they realized that important collection classes don't work well with specialization, and even their new Optional can't save them. (Not directly related, but a good example how design mistakes combine and cause even more pain down the road.)
    • dllthomas 10y ago
      Interesting, thanks!