It sounds reasonable to me to require a non-null name.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > There's no point in using a null-named Marker, right? Many methods don't > allow for a null argument for Marker name, but the constructor does. I'm > going to change this. > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > -- Bruce Brouwer
