On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Tony Printezis <tprinte...@twitter.com> > wrote: > >> Martin, >> >> You are forgiven. :-) >> >> So, the (valid, I think) issue with getIfPresent(), as originally proposed >> by Peter, was that if get() was overridden in the subclass to somehow >> transform the returned value, getIfPresent() wouldn’t apply the same >> transformation. >> >> Doesn’t your compute() method have essentially the same issue? Apart from >> that, I personally like this proposal as I agree: one look-up is always >> better than two. >> >> > A non-prototype implementation would delegate compute into ThreadLocalMap > itself, where there is no risk of overriding.
I don't think overriding is the risk; the risk would be compute* behaving inconsistently with regards to an overridden get*. -- - DML
