Does this remain the recommended way to deal with Optional constructor arguments?
On Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 8:21:39 PM UTC-5, Jesse Wilson wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 1:10 pm, Martin Grajcar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Do you think it's bad idea? > > Yeah, I don't think it pulls its weight. With the current solution, > you get to supply your own fallback value such as NoOpAirConditioner. > If we permitted optionality on a parameter-by-parameter basis, our > poor users would have to cope with null. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-guice" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-guice. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-guice/4d3812e1-9e44-445b-a93d-d46741a3aef0%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
