=== relates to: S2966

=== on 21 Jun 2016, 14:21:34 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] Let me know what you think.

=== on 22 Jun 2016, 08:40:16 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~tamas.vajk], now that the differences in the language mechanisms have had time to sink in, I'm going to leave this as a top-level RSpec.

=== on 29 Jun 2016, 12:10:05 Freddy Mallet wrote:
Hi [~tamas.vajk], I can't manage to understand why this rule is relevant in Java because for me there is no such concept of nullable value in Java. Or am I missing something ? Thanks cc [~michael.gumowski], [~nicolas.peru], [~ann.campbell.2]

=== on 29 Jun 2016, 13:20:19 Nicolas Peru wrote:
\[~freddy.mallet] Optional. (``++.get()++`` and ``++.isPresent()++``)

=== on 29 Jun 2016, 13:47:30 Freddy Mallet wrote:
Thanks [~nicolas.peru] !

=== on 29 Jun 2016, 14:33:12 Michael Gumowski wrote:
\[~freddy.mallet] I think the java aspect of this rule should be handled in a different RSPEC.

=== on 3 Jul 2016, 18:30:03 Freddy Mallet wrote:
I think [~ann.campbell.2] is right [~michael.gumowski] : would be better for java to create a sub-task instead of creating another dedicated RSPEC.

=== on 4 Jul 2016, 09:20:45 Michael Gumowski wrote:
Okay, fine for me [~freddy.mallet] & [~ann.campbell.2]!

