> That's exactly how I do it, and it seems clear enough to me. The > reasoning is that null is the only valid value for variable of type > Void, since Void is not instantiable (without trickery). >
Except void is, by definition, not supposed to occupy any slots on the stack-frame, and its semantics is very different from null (any and all types). It feels like another one of those dirty type-system duality corners that makes erasure look like a hack. Then, you just do VoidMapper instead of RowMapper. (And voidMap > instead of Map.) > That's a decent way of shielding what goes on when you have a lot of callbacks. It also composes better in a nested hierarchy of tight one-liners (impossible with "return null;" sprinkled all over). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/T9hA9fGw7l0J. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
