Ben Yu

No. Don't take away the option of providing null values. This works still as today: ```java assertThat(...).containsExactly(null, 2, 3); ``` The only option we don't support is the ability to...

I was able to get the following code compile locally but I wasn't able to figure out how to add the test to the framework in the test directory. Adding...

Another data point, if it wasn't explicit: With `containsExactly()` supporting lambdas as well, it will supersede the family of `satisfiesExactly()` methods. Users will no longer have to choose between the...

If you have a BiStream and would like to treat it as a `Stream`, consider to call `.mapToObj(Map::entry)` ? The main motivation behind BiStream is that you don't have to...

Was just pointed to the latest JDK StructuredConcurrency javadoc. Looks like they've made all these exceptions unchecked (https://download.java.net/java/early_access/loom/docs/api/java.base/java/util/concurrent/StructuredTaskScope.html): * `ExecutionException` -> `StructuredTaskScope.FailedException` (unchecked) * `TimeoutException` -> `StructuredTaskScope.TimeoutException` (unchecked) Looks like...

Yeah. We are having discussions in that thread. My latest thoughts on these racy-flavor of concurrency: https://www.reddit.com/r/java/comments/1fazdkl/comment/lm5p3bp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Feel free to chime in. :)

> You can join individual tasks before the whole scope is joined. Wondering what kind of memory consistency you provide in that case? In naive structured concurrency, say, if you...