2015-06-21 14:53 GMT+02:00 sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: > On 21 June 2015 at 13:24, Kristian Rosenvold > <kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2015-06-21 13:43 GMT+02:00 sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: > > > >> > >> > I'm not sure I understand; the equivalent of > >> > > >> > Boolean result = (Boolean) isSymbolicLink.invoke(null, path); > >> > return result.booleanValue(); > >> > > >> > Gives a style warning (uneccssary unboxing) in IntelliJ. > >> > >> That warning is wrong. > >> > >> Unboxing is clearly necessary here; it's just a question of whether it > >> is implicit or explicit. > >> > >> I have seen several cases where implicit boxing was associated with a > code > >> bug. > >> For example, a local variable was defined as Boolean but always used as > >> boolean. > >> > > > > This makes me curious; the only bug I know of in this context is the > clasic > > NPE you can get in the automatic unboxing. Is there some other scenario > > you're thinking of ? (Uneccessary object allocation is obvious and > > something we try to avoid but hardly a bug. In this case I also think the > > object is unavoidable...) > > IMO it is a bug to write code that uses unnecessary (un)boxing. > Not a very serious bug in general, though it might well have a > performance impact if done repeatedly. >
But there is no unnecessary unboxing here, hence no bug. I work on way too many projects with way too many code styles to care about arguing these matters. If old-style explicit unboxing is how you want it around here, that's what I'll write. > There was another scenario which I came across a while ago. > Unfortunately I did not keep a note of it, but IIRC it was not just a > performance/NPE issue > That would be interesting to hear about if you remember. Selection of different overloads is the only one I can think of. Kristian
