Actually, I suppose this might make sense for attributes, too. Such as a User class with a Role attribute that you want to make sure is non-null and you are forced handle the null condition with a default Role if something happened to your DB value.
mrg On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Michael Gentry <blackn...@gmail.com> wrote: > I haven't thought through this too much yet, but wanted to get some > feedback if possible. > > Would it make sense to have an option in CM (and supporting templates/etc) > to have Optional as a return type? This would only be meaningful, I think, > on to-one relationships, since to-many will return an empty collection. > > Thanks, > > mrg > >
