4 ms·
Maybe. They didn't seem to communicate any specific knowledge of the Java standard library. Agree an Optional<V> get(K) sounds like an 'obvious' addition
by pbh101 2y ago
Maybe. They didn't seem to communicate any specific knowledge of the Java standard library. Agree an
Optional<V> get(K)
sounds like an 'obvious' addition, though also I've found that when something 'obvious' isn't added to Java since 1.7, the explanation proffered makes sense to me.
- cogman10 2y agoJava doesn't have return type function dispatch. If you had something like: var x = map.get(k); The type of `x` could not be inferred. The best they could hope for is a signature like `Optional<V> getOpt(K);`. Which wouldn't be terribly bad as Java currently has an annoying get definition in the `Map` interface because it predates generics (The current signature is `V get(Object)`). Regardless, if they do want to change the interface, it'd probably be best if they waited for Valhalla to land. One of the problems with `Optional` as it stands is it creates a load of GC pressure. If `Optional` is converted into a value class then there will be effectively no overhead to returning it everywhere.