You are not wrong about cancelabel futures, though.
You are not wrong about cancelabel futures, though.
public sealed interface Maybe<T> {
<T2> Maybe<T2> map(Function<T, T2> mapper);
<T2> Maybe<T2> flatMap(Function<T, Maybe<T2>> mapper);
T elseGet(T fallback);
record Just<T>(T value) implements Maybe<T> {
public <T2> Maybe<T2> map(Function<T, T2> mapper) {
return new Just<T2>(mapper.apply(value));
}
public <T2> Maybe<T2> flatMap(Function<T, Maybe<T2>> mapper) {
return mapper.apply(value);
}
public T elseGet(T fallback) {
return value;
}
}
record Empty<T>() implements Maybe<T> {
public <T2> Maybe<T2> map(Function<T, T2> mapper) {
return new Empty<>();
}
public <T2> Maybe<T2> flatMap(Function<T, Maybe<T2>> mapper) {
return new Empty<>();
}
public T elseGet(T fallback) {
return fallback;
}
}
}
public void demo() {
Maybe<String> foo = new Maybe.Empty<String>();
System.out.println(
switch (foo) {
case Maybe.Just(String val) -> "Hello " + val;
case Maybe.Empty() -> "Fine, leave me hanging";
}
);
}; Maybe<String> foo = null;
foo.map(s -> "bar");
explicit pattern matching is usually discouraged anyway though, and you can do this now with Optional Optional<String> foo = Optional.empty();
String message = foo.map(s -> "Hello " + s).orElse("Fine, leave me hanging");
Other languages like Scala also have an Option.fold method for this specific case.The best you will get is a warning and the JVM will deoptimize Optional back to a regular object, because somewhere someone set an Optional to null somewhere in a library. It doesn't even have to be as obvious as Optional<String> o = null;
Any cast to Optional can let a null pointer slip from an Object reference. List<Optional<String>> is allowed to contain null pointers and you are allowed to assign o = list.get(0) which generates an implicit cast.
There is no good solution for this. Due to the way generics are implemented.
However, unlike the binary choice of class/value type, project valhalla will provide a more granular approach, coming with incremental performance benefits and constraints.
In the current spec draft, the type system boils down to 4 categories:
- Fully mutable, polymorph classes
- Immutable, monomorphic classes
- Immutable, monomorphic classes + null-hostile
- Immutable, monomorphic classes + null-hostile + multithreading-unsafe
Another story for nullability is being investigated as well which would allow for full performance gain as well as full backwards compatibility.
The way Pattern matching works right now is just the beginning.