> * Should there be a common superinterface for
> Path$[BeanNode|PropertyNode|ContainerElementNode], all of which define
> the same methods?

I've been wondering the same, but come to think that it doesn't give you much.

You (as a user) are going to work with specific node types (as
narrowed down via getKind() + as()), so I would not expect you to deal
with that super-type in your code. It'd put the declaration of those
methods into one place, which is nice, though I kinda like the
simplicity of the current Node hierarchy, with one specific sub-type
per kind.

What do others think?

> * Should Positive/Negative#strict() default true be provided as
> #orZero() default false, for commonality with
> [Past|Future]#orPresent() ?

Hum, yes, good point. I think I'd prefer that.

@Emmanuel, I vaguely remember we discussed this. Did you see a good
reason for the current default?

@All, what do you think?