On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 13:58:35 GMT, Andrey Turbanov
wrote:
> I propose to replace usages of !Optional.isPresent() with Optional.isEmpty
> method.
> It's makes code a bit easier to read.
> Noticing negation before long chain of method calls is hard.
This pull request has no
On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 13:58:35 GMT, Andrey Turbanov
wrote:
> I propose to replace usages of !Optional.isPresent() with Optional.isEmpty
> method.
> It's makes code a bit easier to read.
> Noticing negation before long chain of method calls is hard.
LGTM
-
Mark
On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 13:58:35 GMT, Andrey Turbanov
wrote:
> I propose to replace usages of !Optional.isPresent() with Optional.isEmpty
> method.
> It's makes code a bit easier to read.
> Noticing negation before long chain of method calls is hard.
Looks okay, this code pre-
I propose to replace usages of !Optional.isPresent() with Optional.isEmpty
method.
It's makes code a bit easier to read.
Noticing negation before long chain of method calls is hard.
-
Commit messages:
- [PATCH] Use Optional.isEmpty instead of !Optional.isPresent in jdk.
eyarath/8184693/webrev.05/ .
Regards
Vivek
-Original Message-
From: Stuart Marks
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 8:56 AM
To: Vivek Theeyarath
Cc: core-libs-dev ; Paul Sandoz
Subject: Re: RFR: 8184693: (opt) add Optional.isEmpty
Hi Vivek,
Thanks for the update. In the test files, pl
Vivek Theeyarath
Cc: core-libs-dev ; Paul Sandoz
Subject: Re: RFR: 8184693: (opt) add Optional.isEmpty
Hi Vivek,
Thanks for the update. In the test files, please remove the unnecessary imports
of List and the various Predicate types. In most cases it's not a problem to
have unnecessary
Optional.isEmpty
Hi Vivek,
Thanks for the update. In the test files, please remove the unnecessary imports
of List and the various Predicate types. In most cases it's not a problem to
have unnecessary imports. I happened to notice in this case that they're left
over from the previous
riginal Message-
From: Stuart Marks
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 5:11 AM
To: Vivek Theeyarath
Cc: core-libs-dev ; Paul Sandoz
Subject: Re: RFR: 8184693: (opt) add Optional.isEmpty
Hi Vivek,
Please add "@since 11" tags to the doc comments of the four Optional*.isEmpty()
methods.
Reg
) add Optional.isEmpty
Hi Vivek,
Please add "@since 11" tags to the doc comments of the four Optional*.isEmpty()
methods.
Regarding the tests, I don't think the various newly added testIsEmpty() tests
are useful. The setup in those test files already generates a fairly
compr
/webrev.02/ .
Here is the csr which I have raised for this change
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8201606
Regards
Vivek
-Original Message-
From: Chris Hegarty
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 6:48 PM
To: Vivek Theeyarath
Cc: Remi Forax ; core-libs-dev
Subject: Re: RFR: 8184693: (
, 2018 6:48 PM
To: Vivek Theeyarath
Cc: Remi Forax ; core-libs-dev
Subject: Re: RFR: 8184693: (opt) add Optional.isEmpty
> On 15 Apr 2018, at 11:25, Vivek Theeyarath
> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>Please review http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtheeyarath/8184693/webrev.01/
This looks
t; Regards
> Vivek
> -Original Message-
> From: Vivek Theeyarath
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2018 6:24 PM
> To: Remi Forax
> Cc: core-libs-dev
> Subject: RE: RFR: 8184693: (opt) add Optional.isEmpty
>
> I missed that Remi. Thanks for pointing it out. Will addres
uot;
>
> Envoyé: Dimanche 15 Avril 2018 12:25:09
> Objet: RE: RFR: 8184693: (opt) add Optional.isEmpty
> Hi All,
> Please review http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtheeyarath/8184693/webrev.01/
>
> Regards
> Vivek
> -Original Message-
> From: Vivek Theeyara
Hi All,
Please review
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtheeyarath/8184693/webrev.01/
Regards
Vivek
-Original Message-
From: Vivek Theeyarath
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2018 6:24 PM
To: Remi Forax
Cc: core-libs-dev
Subject: RE: RFR: 8184693: (opt) add Optional.isEmpty
I missed
Optional.isEmpty
Hi Vivek,
OptionalInt, OptionalLong and OptionalDouble should be changed too.
Rémi
- Mail original -
> De: "Vivek Theeyarath"
> À: "core-libs-dev"
> Envoyé: Samedi 14 Avril 2018 08:22:50
> Objet: RFR: 8184693: (opt) add Optional.isEmpty
> Hi Al
uot;
> À: "core-libs-dev"
> Envoyé: Samedi 14 Avril 2018 08:22:50
> Objet: RFR: 8184693: (opt) add Optional.isEmpty
> Hi All,
>
> Please review.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8184693
>
> Webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/
Hi Vivek,
OptionalInt, OptionalLong and OptionalDouble should be changed too.
Rémi
- Mail original -
> De: "Vivek Theeyarath"
> À: "core-libs-dev"
> Envoyé: Samedi 14 Avril 2018 08:22:50
> Objet: RFR: 8184693: (opt) add Optional.isEmpty
> Hi Al
Hi All,
Please review.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8184693
Webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtheeyarath/8184693/webrev.00/
The related jtreg test was run and the test passed .
Regards
Vivek
Hi,
IMHO,boolean isEmpty() would be a good complement to the existing
empty() method.
$.02, Roger
On 4/24/2017 1:15 PM, Anthony Vanelverdinghe wrote:
Hi Peter
I'd say no: it's merely the negation of an existing method, and given
that the bar for adding methods to Optional is set very high
Hi Peter
I'd say no: it's merely the negation of an existing method, and given
that the bar for adding methods to Optional is set very high (see e.g.
[1] and [2]), I don't see how this one would meet it.
Moreover, I don't see any issues with simply writing:
return !cf.findModule(target).
> On 22 Apr 2017, at 11:40, Peter Levart wrote:
>return cf.findModule(target).isEmpty();
>
> What do you think? Would this pull its weight?
If I had a nickel for each time I started typing .isEm.., I'd have a
respectable nickel collection. Big +1 from me.
Sander
On 24.04.2017 10:26, Andrew Dinn wrote:
Ah, bike-shedding!
Personally, I much prefer isAbsent() to isNotPresent(), presence and
absence being a historically well-sanctioned English language pairing.
[n.b. I'll grant that my preference for C18th literature over Comp Sci
argot might have swayed
On 22/04/17 14:31, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan wrote:
> Your reasoning has personally convinced me that a method like `isEmpty()`
> would pull its weight. However, at the risk of bikeshedding, I think it
> should be named differently, as `isEmpty()` immediately makes me think that
> `findModule()` retur
Hi Peter,
Your reasoning has personally convinced me that a method like `isEmpty()`
would pull its weight. However, at the risk of bikeshedding, I think it
should be named differently, as `isEmpty()` immediately makes me think that
`findModule()` returns a List, which I'd easily find confusing.
H
Hi,
Seeing the following line in some JDK test that was up for review:
return cf.findModule(target).orElse(null) == null;
I immediately jumped to suggest it would look better if written as:
return !cf.findModule(target).isPresent();
But then I leaned back and asked myself: "Would it
25 matches
Mail list logo
