bkv

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by bkv 11y ago

   If you don't think it's an important distinction then your real beef is that the developer can choose to panic in certain scenarios, which of course is silly when put in context.
2. 2.▲
   by bkv 11y ago

   >Except these aren't at all the same. With a reference, you have no good way of telling whether your reference IS nullable. As the article mentions, we have annotations to do just that. >Therefore it is trivial to a) train develo
3. 3.▲
   by bkv 11y ago

   That is the old bug tracker. An issue was submitted on the official tracker and immediately closed. See https://github.com/findbugsproject/findbugs/issues/56 for explanation.
4. 4.▲
   by bkv 11y ago

   >Actually, (much to my disappointment as I'm just learning rust) you can just take an Option or Result and .unwrap() and the compiler won't complain at you unwrap() is a convenience method that still uses exhaustive pattern mat
5. 5.▲
   by bkv 11y ago

   >Yes, you can write get() and risk an exception. So don't do that. Yes, you can dereference a null pointer and risk an exception. So don't do that. See where this is going? The problem with Java's optional is that it is