I think while a Java Null and Nullable Null are different, asking the
question "isnull" is a similar enough concept to deserve the same
function. The Base/Nullable method is isnull(::Nullable), while the
JavaCall method is isnull(::JavaObject{T}) .. which is the way it should
be, afaics. It's only my wish to write a package that works accross 0.3 and
0.4 that introduces the problem.
On Saturday, 14 March 2015 11:14:58 UTC, Toivo Henningsson wrote:
>
> Do we consider nullness of java objects and nullables to be similar enough
> that they should actually be checked with the same predicate? I guess the
> two concepts do have a lot of things in common, though methods written to
> work with nullables might not be prepared to accept java objects.
