RFR 8135248: Add utility methods to check indexes and ranges

[Paul Benedict]

Ah, I was going to write about "values" ... glad this was mentioned. With
Valhalla working on value classes, it does raise the question if
range-checking is particular to Objects. Clearly it won't be once values
are introduced.

PS: I am still in favor of using Objects at the time being though just to
get something checked-in.


Cheers,
Paul

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Peter Levart <peter.levart at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 09/29/2015 10:01 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>
>> >I think it's worth introducing Preconditions class. checkNotNull
>>> overloads are equally well suited for Objects as they are for
>>> Preconditions, so it's not wrong to have them in both, while checkIndex and
>>> friends don't really suit any of the existing classes. If I would have to
>>> search for them in among existing classes, Arrays would be the place to
>>> look first. List interface the 2nd. IndexOutOfBoundsException wouldn't come
>>> to my mind, as Exception(s) are usually not homes for logic, neither would
>>> Integer which is to abstract to mentally associate it with array or list
>>> index checks.
>>> >
>>>
>> The concern i have is once Preconditions is let loose the scope expands
>> with proposals for “just one more method” (there is even the opportunity to
>> bike shed over the names checkNotNull or requiresNotNull etc. etc.)  I
>> don’t want to discuss such additional methods right now otherwise i will
>> never make progress with the current set.
>>
>> A way forward is to initially include Preconditions with*only*  the check
>> index methods, and in subsequent proposals selectively add more. At the
>> moment i am still leaning towards Objects.
>>
>> Paul.
>>
>>
> I promise I won't discuss any other methods - just checkIndex and friends
> (small steps...)
> But having them in Objects would be very strange. Indexes are not objects
> - they are values.
>
>
> Regards, Peter
>