On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 5:21 AM Andrej Golovnin <andrej.golov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 15/11/17 10:03, Andrej Golovnin wrote: > >> I think we would need to write ugly code in any case as Java 9 has now > >> two empty list implementations: Collections.emptyList() and List.of(). > >> > >> Collections.emptyList().sort() does not throw an exception. > >> > >> List.of().sort() throws an exception. > > > > Well, that's a bug. Sorting an empty list is perfectly valid, and > application > > programmers shouldn't have to special-case it. > > I don't think so. I would say that the implementation of > Collections.emptyList() is broken. Collections.emptyList() and > List.of() are not only empty lists. They are also immutable per > specification. > > Here is another example of an unsortable empty list: > > Collections.unmodifiableList(Collections.emptyList()).sort() throws an > exception. One can argue that since those are empty by construction/design, sorting them is not a bug. That’s different from, say, trying to sort an unmodifiable list that happens to be empty and not failing in that case. >From a user’s perspective, I agree it’s annoying to have to special case these. This is particularly so because immutability is not expressed in the types or type system. > > > > > > -- > > Andrew Haley > > Java Platform Lead Engineer > > Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com> > > EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 C > <https://maps.google.com/?q=EF+DB98+C&entry=gmail&source=g>C77 2FAD A5CD > 6035 332F A671 > -- Sent from my phone
