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 mailings, I think there's some heavy discussions behind the scenes to explore this design space. I don't know if committing to an annotation at this point is the "right" solution. -- Cheers, Paul >* There's been a discussion on the lambda spec experts list >(http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-spec-experts/ ><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 >review: *>>* http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/JDK-8028816/0/webrev/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Emduigou/JDK-8028816/0/webrev/> *>>* I have already reviewed this but will hold off pushing it for a few hours in case someone notices a mistake that I did not. * Would it make sense to have an annotation (with class file retention) to express this? -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
