+1 for having check methods start with 'require' .. that's a nice and useful naming pattern.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: > > > ----- Mail original ----- > > De: "Paul Benedict" <pbened...@apache.org> > > À: "Peter Levart" <peter.lev...@gmail.com> > > Cc: "core-libs-dev" <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net> > > Envoyé: Mercredi 30 Septembre 2015 16:06:18 > > Objet: Re: RFR 8135248: Add utility methods to check indexes and ranges > > > > Ah, I was going to write about "values" ... glad this was mentioned. With > > Valhalla working on value classes, it does raise the question if > > range-checking is particular to Objects. Clearly it won't be once values > > are introduced. > > > > PS: I am still in favor of using Objects at the time being though just to > > get something checked-in. > > I am in favor of Objects too, > but I think the name (oh no bikeshedding again) should start with require* > too make it clear that it goes with requireNonNull > > 'requireIndexInBounds' anyone ? > >
