IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New OK, maybe so
Because now I'm trying to figure out how you put a null integer into the container in the first place. My guess is if autoboxing is implemented, then nobody will bother with using the wrapper classes directly (since they can't even be used for arithmetic now anyhow).

IOW, you are never going to see this in brand new 1.5 code:

Integer i = new Integer(5).
List list = new ArrayList();
list.add(i);

when you can do:

List<int> list = new ArrayList<int>();
list.add(5);

So how do you put a null value into this list?

Is the problem this:

List<Object> list = new ArrayList<Object>();
list.add(new Integer(5)); // do you need to do this or should the autoboxing make it an Integer?

then the argument is

int i = list.get(0);

which should require a cast anyhow since the list type is Object.
Hmmmm. I'm not seeing it.



"Packed like lemmings into shiny metal boxes.
Contestants in a suicidal race."
    - Synchronicity II - The Police
New Re: OK, maybe so
ToddBlanchard: [...] figure out how you put a null integer into the container in the first place.

How about (stealing the example from the article) ...
Map<String, Integer> m = new TreeMap<String, Integer>();\nint i = m.get("not_yet_in_map");
Should "i" be zero, or should there be a null pointer exception thrown? (remember that get returns a null pointer of the key doesn't exist).
--
-- Jim Weirich jweirich@one.net [link|http://w3.one.net/~jweirich|http://w3.one.net/~jweirich]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
New Well in this case
I think a KeyNotFoundException should be thrown.

This is just another case where Smalltalk's collection class protocols are vastly superior to J-crap.

i := dict at: 'not_there' ifAbsent: [ 0 ].

For java I would propose something similar on Map.

map.getValueIfAbsent('key_not_found',5);

failure to use this should throw a KeyNotFoundException.



"Packed like lemmings into shiny metal boxes.
Contestants in a suicidal race."
    - Synchronicity II - The Police
New Perhaps ... but ...
Todd: For java I would propose [...] map.getValueIfAbsent('key_not_found',5);

That's an interesting proposal ... but it still doesn't solve the basic question of unboxing nulls. But ... let's let the J-Heads worry about that.

Ruby handles missing hash values a bit differently. If the key is not in the hash, you get a default value (which is typically nil, but can be something else).

   h = Hash.new\n   h['not_there']  #=>  nil\n\n   g = Hash.new { 0 }\n   g['not_there']  #=>  0\n\n   j = Hash.new { fail "key not found" }\n   j['not_there']  #=> Exception

--
-- Jim Weirich jweirich@one.net [link|http://w3.one.net/~jweirich|http://w3.one.net/~jweirich]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
New My point was
it should be impossible to "box" null (and I think it probably is). So the problem ought not to exist. So the problem isn't how do you unbox null, its "how do you provide a mechanism for signaling and handling this case".

I have found the requirement to provide a default "not found" value to be a useful bit of flypaper.

OTOH, Java currently returns null from maps where the key is missing so I suppose they will decide that backwards compatibility is more important than better behvior.




"Packed like lemmings into shiny metal boxes.
Contestants in a suicidal race."
    - Synchronicity II - The Police
     The awakening begins - (tuberculosis) - (140)
         Quotes from Uncle Bob - (admin) - (12)
             Maybe it's just me... - (Simon_Jester) - (5)
                 Static languages make the code brittle ... - (bluke)
                 History revisionism - beware !!! (IMHO) - (dmarker) - (3)
                     Re: History revisionism - beware !!! (IMHO) - (JimWeirich) - (2)
                         Another issue was the potential popularity of a lang - (dmarker) - (1)
                             Re: Another issue was the potential popularity of a lang - (JimWeirich)
             Gee...I thought it was a friendly discussion... - (jb4) - (4)
                 Re: Gee...I thought it was a friendly discussion... - (JimWeirich) - (3)
                     Manifest typing....a la Fortran. - (Simon_Jester)
                     Thanks, Jim. Nicely put. -NT - (jb4) - (1)
                         Re: Ditto - Thanks, Jim. -NT - (dmarker)
             Next experiment: try it without OO -NT - (tablizer)
         Java going in the other direction - (bluke) - (109)
             Re: Java going in the other direction - (JimWeirich) - (34)
                 Smalltalk also - (bluke)
                 Speaking of autoboxing - (ChrisR) - (32)
                     gasp -NT - (deSitter) - (2)
                         This is what happens when the foundation sucks - (bluke) - (1)
                             Oh My! - (deSitter)
                     According to Joshua Bloch it hasn't been decided yet - (bluke) - (28)
                         This is just stupid - (tuberculosis) - (27)
                             I think you missed the point - (JimWeirich) - (5)
                                 OK, maybe so - (tuberculosis) - (4)
                                     Re: OK, maybe so - (JimWeirich) - (3)
                                         Well in this case - (tuberculosis) - (2)
                                             Perhaps ... but ... - (JimWeirich) - (1)
                                                 My point was - (tuberculosis)
                             Not J-heads. - (admin) - (1)
                                 Smalltalk as usual is consistent - (bluke)
                             Set Theory - (deSitter) - (18)
                                 Re: Set Theory - (admin) - (12)
                                     Here we go - (deSitter) - (11)
                                         Re: Here we go - (admin) - (10)
                                             Amazing - (deSitter) - (9)
                                                 Re: Amazing - (admin) - (6)
                                                     Re: Amazing - (deSitter) - (5)
                                                         Wow. My first exposure to APL - (Arkadiy) - (1)
                                                             Same as in Objective C -NT - (admin)
                                                         Re: Amazing - (JimWeirich) - (2)
                                                             Heh. - (tseliot) - (1)
                                                                 ROFL -NT - (deSitter)
                                                 No - (Arkadiy)
                                                 Hey Ross, it's only a model. - (mmoffitt)
                                 Hey, watch this! - (drewk)
                                 Unlike DrooK, I'll bite: Ever heard of SQL, ya nitwit?!? -NT - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                     See comment above, applies here as well - (deSitter) - (2)
                                         Better stop talking to yourself then. - (admin)
                                         Your problem is the same you had a year (or was it two?) ago - (CRConrad)
             I remeber Pascal in the very same way - (jb4) - (72)
                 Just had this conversation - (tseliot) - (45)
                     Freep said the same thing - (tuberculosis) - (43)
                         Still waiting for ... - (jb4) - (42)
                             Depends on constraints - (tuberculosis) - (41)
                                 Platforms: - (jb4) - (40)
                                     Don't even get me started - (tuberculosis) - (30)
                                         I'll get you started, alright! - (jb4) - (29)
                                             No I'm not - (tuberculosis) - (28)
                                                 The problem is, you're trying to treat a bool as a number - (jb4) - (25)
                                                     No, I'm trying to branch on a condition - (tuberculosis) - (24)
                                                         21st Century Schitzoid Man - (jb4) - (23)
                                                             You are fighting the language - (tuberculosis) - (22)
                                                                 Tell you what... - (jb4)
                                                                 Can I put my oar in? - (static) - (20)
                                                                     Yeah sure - (tuberculosis) - (19)
                                                                         Such flowerly language toward such a misguided conclusion - (jb4) - (18)
                                                                             Yeah right - (tuberculosis) - (17)
                                                                                 (++true == false) - (ChrisR) - (1)
                                                                                     Just add a little gasoline, and stir!_____;-) - (jb4)
                                                                                 OK, Now I see wht your problem is - (jb4) - (5)
                                                                                     I thought you were going to give up on this - (tuberculosis) - (4)
                                                                                         How sensible is this?!? - (jb4) - (3)
                                                                                             Not convinced - (tuberculosis) - (2)
                                                                                                 Nor am I - (jb4) - (1)
                                                                                                     You guys should be using Modula-2. :-P (new thread) - (Another Scott)
                                                                                 And an answer to your question. - (jb4) - (8)
                                                                                     Wrong answer - (tuberculosis) - (7)
                                                                                         Wrong answer back - (jb4)
                                                                                         They've turned it into Pascal - (deSitter) - (5)
                                                                                             Circular definition. - (CRConrad) - (4)
                                                                                                 Re: Circular definition. - (deSitter) - (3)
                                                                                                     Self-contradiction, and logically inconsistent definition. - (CRConrad) - (2)
                                                                                                         Can someone start a new thread please? -NT - (drewk) - (1)
                                                                                                             What for, aren't the long ones the best? -NT - (CRConrad)
                                                 Comments on supposed idiocy - (JimWeirich) - (1)
                                                     Re: Comments on supposed idiocy - (tuberculosis)
                                     Don't even get me started - (tuberculosis)
                                     You didn't mention types of programs -NT - (tuberculosis) - (7)
                                         Sorry, thot I was clear earlier... - (jb4) - (6)
                                             Still doesn't tell me enough - (tuberculosis) - (5)
                                                 Re: Still doesn't tell me enough - (jb4) - (4)
                                                     The VM's are all written in very portable C - (tuberculosis) - (3)
                                                         Re: The VM's are all written in very portable C - (deSitter) - (2)
                                                             Funny you should mention it - (tuberculosis) - (1)
                                                                 Re: Funny you should mention it - (deSitter)
                     Minor modification - (jb4)
                 Just because *you* don't see it... - (pwhysall)
                 In fact.. - (deSitter) - (15)
                     Heh... - (jb4) - (14)
                         Re: Heh... - (deSitter) - (13)
                             BS - (admin) - (3)
                                 BS - (deSitter) - (2)
                                     When I see you spouting it, I'm going to call you on it. - (admin) - (1)
                                         Fair enough! -NT - (deSitter)
                             Do you have a clue why Linux is easily ported? - (ben_tilly) - (8)
                                 Re: Do you have a clue why Linux is easily ported? - (deSitter) - (7)
                                     No, that is not quite what you claimed - (ben_tilly) - (6)
                                         Well, to me -NT - (deSitter)
                                         Well, to me "moot" means.. - (deSitter) - (4)
                                             Why does your position appear to be shifting? - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                                                 Modus operandi - (admin) - (1)
                                                     Re: Modus operandi - (deSitter)
                                                 Re: Why does your position appear to be shifting? - (deSitter)
                 Wasn't Pascal written as a teaching tool? - (drewk) - (8)
                     Yes - (bluke)
                     Re: Wasn't Pascal written as a teaching tool? - (JimWeirich) - (6)
                         Re: Wasn't Pascal written as a teaching tool? - (Yendor) - (4)
                             Forward Declarations - (JimWeirich) - (3)
                                 Hmm, was Turbo Pascal different about that? -NT - (drewk)
                                 Been too long - (Yendor)
                                 Nope, you're right. - (jb4)
                         Not when I learned it - (drewk)
             Same bandaid as C++ templates - (tuberculosis)
         Re: The awakening begins - (systems) - (16)
             A couple answers - (tuberculosis) - (12)
                 ICLRPD - (drewk)
                 Do I C another one...? - (CRConrad) - (10)
                     Aren't they like seals? - (tuberculosis) - (9)
                         Yes they are. - (admin)
                         No - they're "almost, but not entirely, unlike" seals. - (CRConrad) - (7)
                             NFC. -NT - (admin) - (1)
                                 Does the phrase "Splitting Hairs" come to mind. :-) -NT - (ChrisR)
                             birds are feathered and hairy - (boxley) - (4)
                                 It's all feathers. - (admin) - (3)
                                     Re: It's all feathers. - (deSitter) - (2)
                                         Re, "PS": Yeah, sure - so, whatchathink HAIRS are?!? -NT - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                             Never really thought about it.. - (deSitter)
             Sometimes there aren't right answers - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                 Down with Determinants! :) -NT - (deSitter)
             Please indicate what you changed in an Edit. Thanks. :-) -NT - (Another Scott)

Where is Mac Daddy Warlock Pimp Ken(tm)?
222 ms