----- 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 ? > > > Cheers, > Paul cheers, Rémi > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On 09/29/2015 10:01 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote: > > > >> >I think it's worth introducing Preconditions class. checkNotNull > >>> overloads are equally well suited for Objects as they are for > >>> Preconditions, so it's not wrong to have them in both, while checkIndex > >>> and > >>> friends don't really suit any of the existing classes. If I would have to > >>> search for them in among existing classes, Arrays would be the place to > >>> look first. List interface the 2nd. IndexOutOfBoundsException wouldn't > >>> come > >>> to my mind, as Exception(s) are usually not homes for logic, neither > >>> would > >>> Integer which is to abstract to mentally associate it with array or list > >>> index checks. > >>> > > >>> > >> The concern i have is once Preconditions is let loose the scope expands > >> with proposals for “just one more method” (there is even the opportunity > >> to > >> bike shed over the names checkNotNull or requiresNotNull etc. etc.) I > >> don’t want to discuss such additional methods right now otherwise i will > >> never make progress with the current set. > >> > >> A way forward is to initially include Preconditions with*only* the check > >> index methods, and in subsequent proposals selectively add more. At the > >> moment i am still leaning towards Objects. > >> > >> Paul. > >> > >> > > I promise I won't discuss any other methods - just checkIndex and friends > > (small steps...) > > But having them in Objects would be very strange. Indexes are not objects > > - they are values. > > > > > > Regards, Peter > > >
