How about Objects.ifNull? Short and sweet. I don't like requireXXX for
this semantic either.
sent from my phone
On Oct 31, 2015 3:45 PM, "John Rose" <john.r.r...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2015, at 4:17 AM, Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
> >
> > Hi John,
> > I think there is a good reason to not reuse/enhance the requireNonNull
> prefix,
> > requireNonNull here is used to check a precondition or an invariant (a
> contract), hence a name that starts with 'require' like in Eiffel.
> > (BTW re-reading this thread, Brian already said that)
>
> Ah, of course—that's where require came from, from contract terms. Thanks.
>
> > requireNonNullElseGet is not something that checks a contract and as you
> said, nonNull is not a good prefix too, so we should starts a new family.
>
> It seems to me that, even so, "require*" makes excellent logical sense for
> the proposed use case. As I said, it requires a slight adjustment (really,
> an *expansion*) of the contract viewpoint. I think we should be happy to
> think of the new "require*" logic as an "extended contract" or "contract
> with fallback/repair".
>
> Why shouldn't contract checks (at least in our system) offer repairs? Why
> must "require", as imported from Eiffel (or some such place) dictate the
> meaning of a family of Java methods? If I am working on new Java code, and
> I want to enforce a dynamically checked condition P on some value X, I
> *first* think, "X must be (is required to be) P", and then as a *secondary*
> thought I think, "what event E should happen if that fails?" In this case,
> X is a reference value and P is "must not be null". E can often be:
>
> - throw NullPointerException
> - throw IllegalArgumentException
> - throw AssertionError (use assert syntax)
> - replace X with an ad hoc fallback value
> - replace X with the result of some ad hoc computation (Supplier.get)
> - execute some ad hoc logic inline (control flow)
>
> I understand that contract systems (per se) allow a single contract to be
> injected across a range of sites, and so the use of ad hoc local values is
> impossible in those use cases, but (again) we are not designing a contract
> system here.
>
> — John
>
> P.S. If we did add a contract system, perhaps we would end up with
> double-requires, as:
>
> class Box<T> {
> private T value;
> static require<in value> { Objects.requireNonNull(value); }
> // value null-checked before every storage
> ...
> }
>
> This suggests there is only a weak linkage between some hypothetical
> contract system and the present API.
>
> P.P.S.
> > what about:
> > <T> T coalesceNull(T, T)
> > <T> T coalesceNullGet(T, Supplier<? extends T>)
>
> (Sorry, not for my bikeshed.)
