On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
Never mind, I see Validate now... ;)
Gary
>
> 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
>
--
Thank you,
Gary
http://garygregory.wordpress.com/
http://garygregory.com/
http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/
http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
