groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: suggestion: ImplicitSafeNavigation annotation
Date Tue, 14 Aug 2018 11:38:06 GMT
IMHO, there is an ever so subtle difference between navigation - using 
the . operator explictly or implicitly (as with indexing) - and 

I am personally perfectly happy for my arithmetic expressions to fail 
with any applicable exception if I throw unacceptable values at them.


Den 2018-08-14 13:28, skrev ocs@ocs:
> Gentlemen,
> some NPE-related problems of today brought me to re-interate one of my
> older suggestions.
> We have the so-called “safe navigation”[*], which in some cases allows
> a null to be propagated out of an expression instead of throwing a
> NPE. At the moment, it can be triggered for a particular
> sub-expression (like property/method-call and, as of 3, newly also
> indexing) using a question mark (e.g., “foo?.bar()” or “foo?[bar]”).
> Do please correct me if I am wrong, but far as I know, there still are
> expressions which do not allow the “safe mode”, e.g., arithmetic
> (“a+b” etc). Furthermore, there are cases when one simply wants a
> bigger block of code to contain only null-propagating expressions and
> never NPE; in such case, using the question mark syntax is both
> inconvenient and error-prone (for it is very easy to forget one of the
> lot of question marks needed in such a code, and then get an uncaught
> unwanted NPE).
> For these reasons, I would suggest adding a new annotation, whose name
> might be e.g., “ImplicitSafeNavigation”; it would simply force a
> null-propagation to be implicitly and automatically used for *all*
> expressions in the annotated scope, i.e., NPE would never be thrown
> for them; for example:
> ===
> @ImplicitSafeNavigation class Foo {
>  static foo(a,b,c,d,e) {
>*c[d]<<e.bax() // just e.g.; would work with *any*
> expression which NPEs today
>  }
> }
> assert null ==,null,null,null,null)
> ===
> I wonder whether this enhancement would be possible to implement in
> some forthcoming Groovy release? Myself, I believe it would help
> tremendously.
> If feasible, then it is for a further discussion whether in the scope
> of this annotation
> (a) a safe-navigation syntax (“foo?.bar”) should be ignored as 
> superfluous;
> (b) or, whether in this scope it should reverse the behaviour to
> trigger an NPE anyway;
> (c) or, whether it should be ignored as (a), and aside of that it
> would be worth the effort (and technically possible) to add another
> syntax to force NPE over a particular sub-expression (e.g.,
> “foo!.bar”).
> Thanks and all the best,
> OC
> [*] The name might not be quite apt, for propagating a null is not
> inherently safer than NPEing; those are simply two different
> approaches, both of which serve best in different circumstances. A
> better name would be something like “null-propagating” or “non-NPE”
> mode, I guess. Myself, I don't think we should change the name though,
> for all are used to it.

View raw message