On 12/03/2013 11:21 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
There's been a discussion on the lambda spec experts list
(http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-spec-experts/) about adding a
notice to the Optional classes about implications of their likely future as
values. This discussion recently
Florian, it's an idea I also broached but did not receive any feedback:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-libs-spec-observers/2013-December/002585.html
The only downside to adding the annotation is that it makes it the
official way to denote a value type. Based on some JEPs and Lambda
A future version of Java will hopefully have value types. The disclaimers
about value-based are intended as a stake in the ground, to preserve the
option to migrate these specific new-to-Java-8 types to value types in the
future. (Older sort-of-valueish-like-but-not-quite types, like Integer,
Hi Mike,
It is cleaner specification avoid mixing normative language and
informative language in the same sentence.
..may have unpredictable effects and should be avoided
The first part is specifying the unpredictable behavior and the 2nd part
is advice to a user of the API.
may is weak
On 12/04/2013 03:06 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
Overall looks fine.
If you're listing yourself as the reviewer, jcheck will object if
you're also the changeset author. Instead of listing Brian Goetz in
Contributed-by, make him the changeset author instead. Using MQ, do
hg qref -u briangoetz.
Hello all;
There's been a discussion on the lambda spec experts list
(http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-spec-experts/) about adding a
notice to the Optional classes about implications of their likely future as
values. This discussion recently completed so now there's a doc patch to
On Dec 3 2013, at 18:06 , Stuart Marks stuart.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Overall looks fine.
If you're listing yourself as the reviewer, jcheck will object if you're also
the changeset author. Instead of listing Brian Goetz in Contributed-by, make
him the changeset author instead. Using MQ,
