On Wed, 21 May 2025 09:09:15 GMT, Tagir F. Valeev <tval...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Implementation of Comparator.min and Comparator.max methods. Preliminary >> discussion is in this thread: >> https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2025-May/145638.html >> The specification is mostly composed of Math.min/max and Collections.min/max >> specifications. >> >> The methods are quite trivial, so I don't think we need more extensive >> testing (e.g., using different comparators). But if you have ideas of new >> useful tests, I'll gladly add them. >> >> I'm not sure whether we should specify exactly the behavior in case if the >> comparator returns 0. I feel that it could be a useful invariant that >> `Comparator.min(a, b)` and `Comparator.max(a, b)` always return different >> argument, partitioning the set of {a, b} objects (even if they are equal). >> But I'm open to suggestions here. > > Tagir F. Valeev has updated the pull request incrementally with one > additional commit since the last revision: > > Return first argument in case of tie (to be consistent with > BinaryOperator); junit tests What I was trying to say is that not only would Guava's Ordering not compile any more (it would still be binary compatible I think, as both methods have same erasure), but I also think that generic max and min as defined by Guava's Ordering are more useful too. So what do you think of making them generic like this: default <E extends T> E max(E e1, E e2) { return compare(e1, e2) >= 0 ? e1 : e2; } default <E extends T> E min(E e1, E e2) { return compare(e1, e2) <= 0 ? e1 : e2; } ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25297#issuecomment-2898984302
