On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi All:
> >
> > I do like using NullArgumentException, but I find writing this over and
> over
> > tedious:
> >
> > if (arg == null) {
> > thrown new NullArgumentException(argName);
> > }
> > something(arg);
> >
> > How about this instead:
> >
> > NullArgumentException.check(arg, argName);
> > something(arg);
> >
> > or:
> >
> > something(NullArgumentException.check(arg, argName));
> >
> > Depending on the style you like.
> >
> > Where check is:
> >
> > public static <T> T check(T arg, String argName) {
> > if (arg == null) {
> > throw new NullArgumentException(argName);
> > }
> > return arg;
> > }
> >
> > Yes, you are pushing the argName on the stack (or passing it in a
> register)
> > and that is extra work, but you do not have to use the new method then ;)
> >
> > ?
>
> Notice that NullArgumentException doesn't live in [lang] v3. :|
>
Hm... Clearly, I missed that day.
What happened? Did we decide it was not useful or redundant with something
else?
Gary
>
> Matt
>
> >
> > --
> > Thank you,
> > Gary
> >
> > http://garygregory.wordpress.com/
> > http://garygregory.com/
> > http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/
> > http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
Thank you,
Gary
http://garygregory.wordpress.com/
http://garygregory.com/
http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/
http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
