On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 21:02:35 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
> Parameter `ChronoField field` is checked by `if (field instanceof
> ChronoField)`. Such check is confusing, because only one case, when this
> could be `false` is when `field == null`.
> But if condition is not satisfied we will get imm
On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 21:02:35 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
> Parameter `ChronoField field` is checked by `if (field instanceof
> ChronoField)`. Such check is confusing, because only one case, when this
> could be `false` is when `field == null`.
> But if condition is not satisfied we will get imm
On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 21:02:35 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
> Parameter `ChronoField field` is checked by `if (field instanceof
> ChronoField)`. Such check is confusing, because only one case, when this
> could be `false` is when `field == null`.
> But if condition is not satisfied we will get imm
On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 21:02:35 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
> Parameter `ChronoField field` is checked by `if (field instanceof
> ChronoField)`. Such check is confusing, because only one case, when this
> could be `false` is when `field == null`.
> But if condition is not satisfied we will get imm
Parameter `ChronoField field` is checked by `if (field instanceof
ChronoField)`. Such check is confusing, because only one case, when this could
be `false` is when `field == null`.
But if condition is not satisfied we will get immediate NullPointerException
anyway in `return field.range();`.
--
