Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Never using booleans as parameters
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 12:41:14 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <n2sunp$soh$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <87lh9tysy8.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> <boolean-20151120181620@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 1lM8B9/qdtKBc/uIRK2Gjw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:33177

On 11/20/2015 12:17 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> writes:
>> compareObjects(a, b, useVerbose);
>
>    That's alright. Just don't use boolean
>    literals, such as:
>
>        compareObjects( a, b, false );
>
>    . Instead write:
>
>        { final boolean verbose = false;
>          compareObjects( a, b, verbose ); }

The literals question is not specific for boolean at all.

engine.process(1, false);

is difficult to read (you either need to remember what those
parameters means or rely on an IDE to provide the information
as mouse over), but the int is just as difficult to read as
the boolean.

Furthermore the solution specified is not optimal in my opinion.

The best solution is probably the classic:

private static final int ONE_THREAD = 1;
private static final boolean VERBOSE_OFF = false;
...
engine.process(ONE_THREAD, VERBOSE_OFF);

as it documents what the parameters are.

final int ONE_THREAD = 1;
final boolean VERBOSE_OFF = false;
engine.process(ONE_THREAD, VERBOSE_OFF);

is not as good in my opinion. For two reasons:
1) it adds extra unnecessary lines to what the reader have
    to read when reading the code
2) it is not (as) ready for using the same value for multiple
    method calls

Note that the readability argument against literals
can be almost eliminated by a different design:

engine.setThreads(1);
engine.setVerbose(false);
engine.process();

Some will still dislike the literals, but I do not see a readability
issue.

The arguments against the construct will be the reusability and
the consistency.

But I do not see that construct as really bad.

Note that many other languages allows named parameters
to do the same.

Syntax like:

engine.process(threads := 1, verbose := false);

Arne