Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@oxbowlakes
Last active March 8, 2018 00:45
Show Gist options
  • Save oxbowlakes/8d13fae255412e00c59ae6f536a84773 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save oxbowlakes/8d13fae255412e00c59ae6f536a84773 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
import java.util.Optional;
import java.util.function.Function;
class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Optional<String> o = Optional.of("foo");
Function<String, String> f = s -> null;
Function<String, String> g = String::valueOf;
//lawless lolz
System.out.println( o.map(g.compose(f)) ); //Optional[null]
System.out.println( o.map(f).map(g) ); //Optional.empty
//This is because
System.out.println( o.map(f) ); //Optional.empty
//Once again for clarity
System.out.println( o.map(s -> null) ); //Optional.empty
//And now for more lolz
System.out.println( o.flatMap(s -> null) ); //throws NullPointerException
}
}
@jroper
Copy link

jroper commented Apr 20, 2016

Just for clarity, the result of line 11 is an Optional of the String "null", not an Optional of null.

@jedws
Copy link

jedws commented Apr 21, 2016

just for clarity?

@oxbowlakes
Copy link
Author

oxbowlakes commented Apr 22, 2016

That's correct. Optional has been designed to explicitly never be able to contain a null value. Arguably more correct behaviour would have been to have map to throw an NPE if the function application returned null - but you'd still have the issue that o map f map g and o map (g compose f) would be different.

Presumably one "advantage" for explicitly disallowing Optional(null) might raise its head when the JVM gets value classes.

@tonymorris
Copy link

FWIW, we tried this (failed) experiment about 12 years ago. The correct solution is to assume that null does not exist, at all.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment