David.Holmes at oracle.com
Thu Jan 13 23:04:27 UTC 2011
Rémi Forax said the following on 01/14/11 08:31:
> I think I prefer throwIfNull() which is explicit.
As to what gets thrown, none of these suggestions make that obvious from
their name so I would not be concerned about that. Every Java programmer
is very early introduced to NullPointerException.
>> On 1/13/2011 4:12 PM, Tom Hawtin wrote:
>>> On 13/01/2011 20:06, Brian Goetz wrote:
>>>> Most of the other methods in this class are of the form "do the right
>>>> thing if the object is null (or an array)", but this one is "throw an
>>>> exception if the object is null." The intent is clear -- it is for
>>>> simplifying fail-fast behavior by checking for nullity early -- but the
>>>> name is wrong. This is bad for two reasons: (a) it is confusing and (b)
>>>> it forecloses on using the name nonNull() for what most people
>>>> expect it
>>>> to do -- which is provide a reasonable default.
>>> I think this is completely the wrong way around. On encountering a null
>>> the right thing is to throw an NPE. Don't make Sir C.A.R. Hoare's
>>> billion-dollar mistake worse.
>>> Perhaps the carpet-sweeping methods should be renamed, or put into an
>>> appropriately named class.
More information about the core-libs-dev