On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:44:11 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> It's not meant to be "part of the method spec", it's just that it's silly to >> display a summary/detail box unless you have something to show in the >> details. Think of it as a very trivial application of Postel's law. BTW, >> this kind of flexibility in choosing the appropriate container is one of the >> things that led me to choose `Optional` argument instead of overloaded >> methods. It just looks nicer to my eyes. > > I'd be inclined for either `detail` to be `Optional<Content>` or for there to > be an overload that allows `Optional<String>` that calls the sibling with > `Optional<Content>` > it's just that it's silly to display a summary/detail box unless you have > something to show in the details. Agreed. This is just another case of whether it is better to assert/check that the input is sensible, or to silently do something reasonable in the face of unreasonable arguments. If the arg was `Optional<Content>` instead of `Optional<String>` it would be more reasonable to just do the "null or blank" check on the string, and assume that the `Optional<Content>` is well-formed and sensible. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6579
