Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I've heard some voices saying that checking for a returned null value from methods is bad design. I would like to hear some reasons for this.
pseudocode:
variable x = object.method()
if (x is null) do something
The rationale behind not returning null is that you do not have to check for it and hence your code does not need to follow a different path based on the return value. You might want to check out the Null Object Pattern which provides more information on this.
For example, if I were to define a method in Java that returned a Collection I would typically prefer to return an empty collection (i.e. Collections.emptyList()) rather than null as it means my client code is cleaner; e.g.
Collection<? extends Item> c = getItems(); // Will never return null.
for (Item item : c) { // Will not enter the loop if c is empty.
// Process item.
}
... which is cleaner than:
Collection<? extends Item> c = getItems(); // Could potentially return null.
// Two possible code paths now so harder to test.
if (c != null) {
for (Item item : c) {
// Process item.
}
}
Here's the reason.
In Clean Code by Robert Martin he writes that returning null is bad design when you can instead return, say, empty array. Since expected result is an array, why not? It'll enable you to iterate over result without any extra conditions. If it's an integer, maybe 0 will suffice, if it's a hash, empty hash. etc.
The premise is to not force calling code to immediately handle issues. Calling code may not want to concern itself with them. That's also why in many cases exceptions is better than nil.
Good uses of returning null:
If null is a valid functional result, for example: FindFirstObjectThatNeedsProcessing() can return null if not found and the caller should check accordingly.
Bad uses: Trying to replace or hide exceptional situations such as:
catch(...) and return null
API dependency initialization failed
Out of disk space
Invalid input parameters (programming error, inputs must be sanitized by the caller)
etc
In those cases throwing an exception is more adequate since:
A null return value provides no meaningful error info
The immediate caller most likely cannot handle the error condition
There is no guarantee that the caller is checking for null results
However, Exceptions should not be used to handle normal program operation conditions such as:
Invalid username/password (or any user-provided inputs)
Breaking loops or as non-local gotos
Yes, returning NULL is a terrible design, in object-oriented world. In a nutshell, NULL usage leads to:
ad-hoc error handling (instead of exceptions)
ambiguous semantic
slow instead of fast failing
computer thinking instead of object thinking
mutable and incomplete objects
Check this blog post for a detailed explanation: http://www.yegor256.com/2014/05/13/why-null-is-bad.html. More in my book Elegant Objects, Section 4.1.
Who says this is bad design?
Checking for nulls is a common practice, even encouraged, otherwise you run the risk of NullReferenceExceptions everywhere. Its better to handle the error gracefully than throw exceptions when you don't need to.
Based on what you've said so far, I think there's not enough information.
Returning null from a CreateWidget()method seems bad.
Returning null from a FindFooInBar() method seems fine.
Its inventor says it is a billion dollar mistake!
It depends on the language you're using. If you're in a language like C# where the idiomatic way of indicating the lack of a value is to return null, then returning null is a good design if you don't have a value. Alternatively, in languages such as Haskell which idiomatically use the Maybe monad for this case, then returning null would be a bad design (if it were even possible).
If you read all the answers it becomes clear the answer to this question depends on the kind of method.
Firstly, when something exceptional happens (IOproblem etc), logically exceptions are thrown. When exactly something is exceptional is probably something for a different topic..
Whenever a method is expected to possibly have no results there are two categories:
If it is possible to return a neutral value, do so.
Empty enumrables, strings etc are good examples
If such a neutral value does not exist, null should be returned.
As mentioned, the method is assumed to possibly have no result, so it is not exceptional, hence should not throw an exception. A neutral value is not possible (for example: 0 is not especially a neutral result, depending on the program)
Untill we have an official way to denote that a function can or cannot return null, I try to have a naming convention to denote so.
Just like you have the TrySomething() convention for methods that are expected to fail, I often name my methods SafeSomething() when the method returns a neutral result instead of null.
I'm not fully ok with the name yet, but couldn't come up with anything better. So I'm running with that for now.
I have a convention in this area that served me well
For single item queries:
Create... returns a new instance, or throws
Get... returns an expected existing instance, or throws
GetOrCreate... returns an existing instance, or new instance if none exists, or throws
Find... returns an existing instance, if it exists, or null
For collection queries:
Get... always returns a collection, which is empty if no matching[1] items are found
[1] given some criteria, explicit or implicit, given in the function name or as parameters.
Exceptions are for exceptional circumstances.
If your function is intended to find an attribute associated with a given object, and that object does has no such attribute, it may be appropriate to return null. If the object does not exist, throwing an exception may be more appropriate. If the function is meant to return a list of attributes, and there are none to return, returning an empty list makes sense - you're returning all zero attributes.
It's not necessarily a bad design - as with so many design decisions, it depends.
If the result of the method is something that would not have a good result in normal use, returning null is fine:
object x = GetObjectFromCache(); // return null if it's not in the cache
If there really should always be a non-null result, then it might be better to throw an exception:
try {
Controller c = GetController(); // the controller object is central to
// the application. If we don't get one,
// we're fubar
// it's likely that it's OK to not have the try/catch since you won't
// be able to really handle the problem here
}
catch /* ... */ {
}
It's fine to return null if doing so is meaningful in some way:
public String getEmployeeName(int id){ ..}
In a case like this it's meaningful to return null if the id doesn't correspond to an existing entity, as it allows you to distinguish the case where no match was found from a legitimate error.
People may think this is bad because it can be abused as a "special" return value that indicates an error condition, which is not so good, a bit like returning error codes from a function but confusing because the user has to check the return for null, instead of catching the appropriate exceptions, e.g.
public Integer getId(...){
try{ ... ; return id; }
catch(Exception e){ return null;}
}
For certain scenarios, you want to notice a failure as soon as it happens.
Checking against NULL and not asserting (for programmer errors) or throwing (for user or caller errors) in the failure case can mean that later crashes are harder to track down, because the original odd case wasn't found.
Moreover, ignoring errors can lead to security exploits. Perhaps the null-ness came from the fact that a buffer was overwritten or the like. Now, you are not crashing, which means the exploiter has a chance to execute in your code.
What alternatives do you see to returning null?
I see two cases:
findAnItem( id ). What should this do if the item is not found
In this case we could: Return Null or throw a (checked) exception (or maybe create an item and return it)
listItemsMatching (criteria) what should this return if nothing is found?
In this case we could return Null, return an empty list or throw an Exception.
I believe that return null may be less good than the alternatives becasue it requires the client to remember to check for null, programmers forget and code
x = find();
x.getField(); // bang null pointer exception
In Java, throwing a checked exception, RecordNotFoundException, allows the compiler to remind the client to deal with case.
I find that searches returning empty lists can be quite convenient - just populate the display with all the contents of the list, oh it's empty, the code "just works".
Make them call another method after the fact to figure out if the previous call was null. ;-) Hey, it was good enough for JDBC
Well, it sure depends of the purpose of the method ... Sometimes, a better choice would be to throw an exception. It all depends from case to case.
Sometimes, returning NULL is the right thing to do, but specifically when you're dealing with sequences of different sorts (arrays, lists, strings, what-have-you) it is probably better to return a zero-length sequence, as it leads to shorter and hopefully more understandable code, while not taking much more writing on API implementer's part.
The base idea behind this thread is to program defensively. That is, code against the unexpected.
There is an array of different replies:
Adamski suggests looking at Null Object Pattern, with that reply being up voted for that suggestion.
Michael Valenty also suggests a naming convention to tell the developer what may be expected.
ZeroConcept suggests a proper use of Exception, if that is the reason for the NULL.
And others.
If we make the "rule" that we always want to do defensive programming then we can see that these suggestions are valid.
But we have 2 development scenarios.
Classes "authored" by a developer: The Author
Classes "consumed" by another(maybe) developer: the Developer
Regardless of whether a class returns NULL for methods with a return value or not,
the Developer will need to test if the object is valid.
If the developer cannot do this, then that Class/method is not deterministic.
That is, if the "method call" to get the object does not do what it "advertises" (eg getEmployee) it has broken the contract.
As an author of a class, I always want to be as kind and defensive ( and deterministic) when creating a method.
So given that either NULL or the NULL OBJECT (eg if(employee as NullEmployee.ISVALID)) needs to be checked
and that may need to happen with a collection of Employees, then the null object approach is the better approach.
But I also like Michael Valenty's suggestion of naming the method that MUST return null eg getEmployeeOrNull.
An Author who throws an exception is removing the choice for the developer to test the object's validity,
which is very bad on a collection of objects, and forces the developer into exception handling
when branching their consuming code.
As a developer consuming the class, I hope the author gives me the ability to avoid or program for the null situation
that their class/methods may be faced with.
So as a developer I would program defensively against NULL from a method.
If the author has given me a contract that always returns a object (NULL OBJECT always does)
and that object has a method/property by which to test the validity of the object,
then I would use that method/property to continue using the object, else the object is not valid
and I cannot use it.
Bottom line is that the Author of the Class/Methods must provide mechanisms
that a Developer can use in their defensive programming. That is, a clearer intention of the method.
The Developer should always use defensive programming to test the validity of the objects returned
from another class/method.
regards
GregJF
Other options to this, are:
returning some value that indicates success or not (or type of an error), but if you just need boolean value that will indicate success / fail, returning null for failure, and an object for success wouldn't be less correct, then returning true/false and getting the object through parameter.
Other approach would to to use exception to indicates failures, but here - there are actually many more voices, that say this is a BAD practice (as using exceptions may be convenient but has many disadvantages).
So I personally don't see anything bad in returning null as indication that something went wrong, and checking it later (to actually know if you have succeeded or not). Also, blindly thinking that your method will not return NULL, and then base your code on it, may lead to other, sometimes hard to find, errors (although in most cases it will just crash your system :), as you will reference to 0x00000000 sooner or later).
Unintended null functions can arise during the development of a complex programs, and like dead code, such occurrences indicate serious flaws in program structures.
A null function or method is often used as the default behavior of a revectorable function or overrideable method in an object framework.
Null_function #wikipedia
If the code is something like:
command = get_something_to_do()
if command: # if not Null
command.execute()
If you have a dummy object whose execute() method does nothing, and you return that instead of Null in the appropriate cases, you don't have to check for the Null case and can instead just do:
get_something_to_do().execute()
So, here the issue is not between checking for NULL vs. an exception, but is instead between the caller having to handle special non-cases differently (in whatever way) or not.
For my use case I needed to return a Map from method and then looking for a specific key. But if I return an empty Map, then it will lead to NullPointerException and then it wont be much different returning null instead of an empty Map.
But from Java8 onward we could use Optional. The above is the very reason Optional concept was introduced.
G'day,
Returning NULL when you are unable to create a new object is standard practise for many APIs.
Why the hell it's bad design I have no idea.
Edit: This is true of languages where you don't have exceptions such as C where it has been the convention for many years.
HTH
'Avahappy,
Related
As I learn new components in Kotlin, I came accross requireNotNull and checkNotNull but the only difference I've found is that requireNotNull can throw an IllegalArgumentException while checkNotNull can throw an IllegalStateException. Is this the only reason why there are two methods, or I'm missing some under-the-hood implementation detail?
The exception types are the only practical difference, as far as the compiler is concerned — but there's a big difference in intent, for anyone reading the code:
• require…() functions are for checking parameters, to confirm that a function's input fulfils its contract. So you'd normally call them first thing in a function. (Of course, Kotlin's non-nullable types mean that you wouldn't need to call requireNotNull() for a single parameter; but you might need to check a more complex condition on a combination of parameters or their sub-objects.) That's why they throw IllegalArgumentException: it's checking that the arguments are legal.
• check…() functions are for checking the relevant properties, to confirm that the object or whatever is in a valid state for this function to be called now. (Again, any properties that were never null would be typed accordingly, so checkNotNull() is more appropriate for cases where a property, combination, and/or sub-property can be null, but this function mustn't be called when they are.) So they throw IllegalStateException: they're checking that the object's current state allows the function to be called.
In both cases, you could of course write a standard if check (as you would in Java). Or you could use the Elvis operator ?: to do the check the first time the possibly-null value is used. But these functions give you an alternative that's in a more declarative form: you'd normally put them at the top of the function, where they spell out what the function's contract is, in a way that's obvious to anyone glancing at the code.
As a linked answer points out, there are also assert…() functions, which again have more of a semantic difference than a practical one. Those are for detecting programming errors away from the boundary of a function call: for confirming invariants and other conditions, and for all the checks in unit tests and other automated tests.
(Assertions have another important difference: they can be enabled and disabled from the command-line. Though in my experience, that's not a very good thing. If a check is important, it should always be run: be mandatory; if not, then it should be removed, or at least moved to automated tests, once the code is debugged.)
It is a semantic difference and hence it throws different exceptions. RequireNotNull is used to check input values, typically at the beginning of a method, while checkNotNull is used anywhere to check the current state.
If you're looking for differences in implementation, the best place to go would be the source code. In this case it seems like there are no differences aside from the different exception thrown, the source for both methods is otherwise identical.
checkNotNull
[...]
if (value == null) {
val message = lazyMessage()
throw IllegalStateException(message.toString())
} else {
return value
}
requireNotNull
[...]
if (value == null) {
val message = lazyMessage()
throw IllegalArgumentException(message.toString())
} else {
return value
}
Therefore the difference is purely semantic. The answer from #gidds details some good scenarios for using them both.
There are some ways to fulfill a null-checking in Kotlin:
1.
if(myVar != null) {
foo(myVar)
}
2.
myVar?.let {
foo(it)
}
3.
myVar?.run {
foo(this)
}
What are the difference between these ways?
Are there any reasons (performance, best practice, code style etc.) why I should prefer on way over the other?
!! is to tell the compiler that I am sure the value of the variable is not null, and if it is null throw a null pointer exception (NPE) where as ?. is to tell the compiler that I am not sure if the value of the variable is null or not, if it is null do not throw any null pointer.
Another way of using a nullable property is safe call operator ?.
This calls the method if the property is not null or returns null if that property is null without throwing an NPE (null pointer exception).
nullableVariable?.someMethodCall()
All three code are behave same null check in operation-wise.
?. is used for chain operations.
bob?.department?.head?.name // if any of the properties in it is null it returns null
To perform a chain operation only for non-null values, you can use the safe call operator together with let
myVar?.let {
foo(it)
}
the above code is good for code style and performance
more details refer Null Safety
The ways 2 and 3 are more idiomatic for Kotlin. Both functions are quite similar. There is little difference with argument passing.
For example, we have a nullable variable:
var canBeNull: String? = null
When you working with T.run you work with extension function calling and you pass this in the closure.
canBeNull?.run {
println(length) // `this` could be omitted
}
When you call T.let you can use it like lambda argument it.
canBeNull?.let {
myString -> println(myString.length) // You could convert `it` to some other name
}
A good article about Kotlin standard functions.
All three are roughly equivalent.
The if case is more like most other languages, and so many developers may find it easier to read.
However, one difference is that the if case will read the value of myVar twice: once for the check, and again when passing it to foo(). That makes a difference, because if myVar is a property (i.e. something that could potentially be changed by another thread), then the compiler will warn that it could have been set to null after the check. If that's a problem (e.g. because foo() expects a non-null parameter), then you'll need to use one of the other cases.
For that reason, the let case has become fairly common practice in Kotlin. (The run case does just about the same thing, but for some reason isn't as popular for this sort of thing. I don't know why.)
Another way around it is to assign myVar to a temporary value, test that, and then use that. That's also more like other languages, but it's more verbose; many people prefer the conciseness of the let case — especially when myVar is actually a complicated expression.
The examples in your question don't show the true reason to decide.
First of all, since you're not using the return value of foo, you should use neither let nor run. Your choice is between also and apply.
Second, since you already have the result you want to null-check in a variable, the difference fades. This is a better motivating example:
complexCall(calculateArg1(), calculateArg2())?.also {
results.add(it)
}
as opposed to
val result = complexCall(calculateArg1(), calculateArg2())
if (result != null) {
results.add(result)
}
The second example declares an identifier, result, which is now available to the rest of the lexical scope, even though you're done with it in just one line.
The first example, on the other hand, keeps everything self-contained and when you go on reading the rest of the code, you are 100% confident that you don't have to keep in mind the meaning of result.
Kotlin have new features with NullPoint-Exception as Compare to Java.
Basically When we do Coding in Java , then we have to Check with !! in every Flied.
But in Kotlin, it is Easy way to Implement First
as Like,
Suppose, in Kotlin
var response:Json?=Null
response:Json?.let {
this part will handle automatic if response is Not Null....then this Block start Executing }?.run {
This is Nullable But, where we Can put Warring } So, I am Suggest you Guys to Start Work in Kotlin with this Features Provided by Kotlin.
(Flied)?.let { Not Null Value Comes Under }?.run{ Null Value Code }
This will Handle to NullPoint Exception or Protect You App for Crash
What you want to achieve
What you want to achieve is that the Kotlin compiler does a smart cast on the variable you are working with.
In all of your three examples, the compiler can do that.
Example:
if(myVar != null) {
foo(myVar) // smart cast: the compiler knows, that myVar can never be null here
}
The choice
Which one of the options to use, is really a matter of style. What you should not do is mix it up to often. Use one and stick to it.
You don't need to worry about performance since let and run are inlined (see inline function). This means that their code (body) is copied to the call site at compile time so there is no runtime overhead.
Are idempotent and deterministic functions both just functions that return the same result given the same inputs?
Or is there a distinction that I'm missing?
(And if there is a distinction, could you please help me understand what it is)
In more simple terms:
Pure deterministic function: The output is based entirely, and only, on the input values and nothing else: there is no other (hidden) input or state that it relies on to generate its output. There are no side-effects or other output.
Impure deterministic function: As with a deterministic function that is a pure function: the output is based entirely, and only, on the input values and nothing else: there is no other (hidden) input or state that it relies on to generate its output - however there is other output (side-effects).
Idempotency: The practical definition is that you can safely call the same function multiple times without fear of negative side-effects. More formally: there are no changes of state between subsequent identical calls.
Idempotency does not imply determinacy (as a function can alter state on the first call while being idempotent on subsequent calls), but all pure deterministic functions are inherently idempotent (as there is no internal state to persist between calls). Impure deterministic functions are not necessarily idempotent.
Pure deterministic
Impure deterministic
Pure Nondeterministic
Impure Nondeterministic
Idempotent
Input
Only parameter arguments (incl. this)
Only parameter arguments (incl. this)
Parameter arguments and hidden state
Parameter arguments and hidden state
Any
Output
Only return value
Return value or side-effects
Only return value
Return value or side-effects
Any
Side-effects
None
Yes
None
Yes
After 1st call: Maybe.After 2nd call: None
SQL Example
UCASE
CREATE TABLE
GETDATE
DROP TABLE
C# Example
String.IndexOf
DateTime.Now
Directory.Create(String)Footnote1
Footnote1 - Directory.Create(String) is idempotent because if the directory already exists it doesn't raise an error, instead it returns a new DirectoryInfo instance pointing to the specified extant filesystem directory (instead of creating the filesystem directory first and then returning a new DirectoryInfo instance pointing to it) - this is just like how Win32's CreateFile can be used to open an existing file.
A temporary note on non-scalar parameters, this, and mutating input arguments:
(I'm currently unsure how instance methods in OOP languages (with their hidden this parameter) can be categorized as pure/impure or deterministic or not - especially when it comes to mutating the the target of this - so I've asked the experts in CS.SE to help me come to an answer - once I've got a satisfactory answer there I'll update this answer).
A note on Exceptions
Many (most?) programming languages today treat thrown exceptions as either a separate "kind" of return (i.e. "return to nearest catch") or as an explicit side-effect (often due to how that language's runtime works). However, as far as this answer is concerned, a given function's ability to throw an exception does not alter its pure/impure/deterministic/non-deterministic label - ditto idempotency (in fact: throwing is often how idempotency is implemented in the first place e.g. a function can avoid causing any side-effects simply by throwing right-before it makes those state changes - but alternatively it could simply return too.).
So, for our CS-theoretical purposes, if a given function can throw an exception then you can consider the exception as simply part of that function's output. What does matter is if the exception is thrown deterministically or not, and if (e.g. List<T>.get(int index) deterministically throws if index < 0).
Note that things are very different for functions that catch exceptions, however.
Determinacy of Pure Functions
For example, in SQL UCASE(val), or in C#/.NET String.IndexOf are both deterministic because the output depends only on the input. Note that in instance methods (such as IndexOf) the instance object (i.e. the hidden this parameter) counts as input, even though it's "hidden":
"foo".IndexOf("o") == 1 // first cal
"foo".IndexOf("o") == 1 // second call
// the third call will also be == 1
Whereas in SQL NOW() or in C#/.NET DateTime.UtcNow is not deterministic because the output changes even though the input remains the same (note that property getters in .NET are equivalent to a method that accepts no parameters besides the implicit this parameter):
DateTime.UtcNow == 2016-10-27 18:10:01 // first call
DateTime.UtcNow == 2016-10-27 18:10:02 // second call
Idempotency
A good example in .NET is the Dispose() method: See Should IDisposable.Dispose() implementations be idempotent?
a Dispose method should be callable multiple times without throwing an exception.
So if a parent component X makes an initial call to foo.Dispose() then it will invoke the disposal operation and X can now consider foo to be disposed. Execution/control then passes to another component Y which also then tries to dispose of foo, after Y calls foo.Dispose() it too can expect foo to be disposed (which it is), even though X already disposed it. This means Y does not need to check to see if foo is already disposed, saving the developer time - and also eliminating bugs where calling Dispose a second time might throw an exception, for example.
Another (general) example is in REST: the RFC for HTTP1.1 states that GET, HEAD, PUT, and DELETE are idempotent, but POST is not ( https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html )
Methods can also have the property of "idempotence" in that (aside from error or expiration issues) the side-effects of N > 0 identical requests is the same as for a single request. The methods GET, HEAD, PUT and DELETE share this property. Also, the methods OPTIONS and TRACE SHOULD NOT have side effects, and so are inherently idempotent.
So if you use DELETE then:
Client->Server: DELETE /foo/bar
// `foo/bar` is now deleted
Server->Client: 200 OK
Client->Server DELETE /foo/bar
// foo/bar` is already deleted, so there's nothing to do, but inform the client that foo/bar doesn't exist
Server->Client: 404 Not Found
// the client asks again:
Client->Server: DELETE /foo/bar
// foo/bar` is already deleted, so there's nothing to do, but inform the client that foo/bar doesn't exist
Server->Client: 404 Not Found
So you see in the above example that DELETE is idempotent in that the state of the server did not change between the last two DELETE requests, but it is not deterministic because the server returned 200 for the first request but 404 for the second request.
A deterministic function is just a function in the mathematical sense. Given the same input, you always get the same output. On the other hand, an idempotent function is a function which satisfies the identity
f(f(x)) = f(x)
As a simple example. If UCase() is a function that converts a string to an upper case string, then clearly UCase(Ucase(s)) = UCase(s).
Idempotent functions are a subset of all functions.
A deterministic function will return the same result for the same inputs, regardless of how many times you call it.
An idempotent function may NOT return the same result (it will return the result in the same form but the value could be different, see http example below). It only guarantees that it will have no side effects. In other words it will not change anything.
For example, the GET verb is meant to be idempotent in HTTP protocol. If you call "~/employees/1" it will return the info for employee with ID of 1 in a specific format. It should never change anything but simply return the employee information. If you call it 10, 100 or so times, the returned format will always be the same. However, by no means can it be deterministic. Maybe if you call it the second time, the employee info has changed or perhaps the employee no longer even exists. But never should it have side effects or return the result in a different format.
My Opinion
Idempotent is a weird word but knowing the origin can be very helpful, idem meaning same and potent meaning power. In other words it means having the same power which clearly doesn't mean no side effects so not sure where that comes from. A classic example of There are only two hard things in computer science, cache invalidation and naming things. Why couldn't they just use read-only? Oh wait, they wanted to sound extra smart, perhaps? Perhaps like cyclomatic complexity?
Simple question, from a readability standpoint, which method name do you prefer for a boolean method:
public boolean isUserExist(...)
or:
public boolean doesUserExist(...)
or:
public boolean userExists(...)
public boolean userExists(...)
Would be my prefered. As it makes your conditional checks far more like natural english:
if userExists ...
But I guess there is no hard and fast rule - just be consistent
I would say userExists, because 90% of the time my calling code will look like this:
if userExists(...) {
...
}
and it reads very literally in English.
if isUserExist and if doesUserExist seem redundant.
Beware of sacrificing clarity whilst chasing readability.
Although if (user.ExistsInDatabase(db)) reads nicer than if (user.CheckExistsInDatabase(db)), consider the case of a class with a builder pattern, (or any class which you can set state on):
user.WithName("Mike").ExistsInDatabase(db).ExistsInDatabase(db2).Build();
It's not clear if ExistsInDatabase is checking whether it does exist, or setting the fact that it does exist. You wouldn't write if (user.Age()) or if (user.Name()) without any comparison value, so why is if (user.Exists()) a good idea purely because that property/function is of boolean type and you can rename the function/property to read more like natural english? Is it so bad to follow the same pattern we use for other types other than booleans?
With other types, an if statement compares the return value of a function to a value in code, so the code looks something like:
if (user.GetAge() >= 18) ...
Which reads as "if user dot get age is greater than or equal to 18..." true - it's not "natural english", but I would argue that object.verb never resembled natural english and this is simply a basic facet of modern programming (for many mainstream languages). Programmers generally don't have a problem understanding the above statement, so is the following any worse?
if (user.CheckExists() == true)
Which is normally shortened to
if (user.CheckExists())
Followed by the fatal step
if (user.Exists())
Whilst it has been said that "code is read 10x more often than written", it is also very important that bugs are easy to spot. Suppose you had a function called Exists() which causes the object to exist, and returns true/false based on success. You could easily see the code if (user.Exists()) and not spot the bug - the bug would be very much more obvious if the code read if (user.SetExists()) for example.
Additionally, user.Exists() could easily contain complex or inefficient code, round tripping to a database to check something. user.CheckExists() makes it clear that the function does something.
See also all the responses here: Naming Conventions: What to name a method that returns a boolean?
As a final note - following "Tell Don't Ask", a lot of the functions that return true/false disappear anyway, and instead of asking an object for its state, you tell it to do something, which it can do in different ways based on its state.
The goal for readability should always be to write code the closest possible to natural language. So in this case, userExists seems the best choice. Using the prefix "is" may nonetheless be right in another situations, for example isProcessingComplete.
My simple rule to this question is this:
If the boolean method already HAS a verb, don't add one. Otherwise, consider it. Some examples:
$user->exists()
$user->loggedIn()
$user->isGuest() // "is" added
I would go with userExists() because 1) it makes sense in natural language, and 2) it follows the conventions of the APIs I have seen.
To see if it make sense in natural language, read it out loud. "If user exists" sounds more like a valid English phrase than "if is user exists" or "if does user exist". "If the user exists" would be better, but "the" is probably superfluous in a method name.
To see whether a file exists in Java SE 6, you would use File.exists(). This looks like it will be the same in version 7. C# uses the same convention, as do Python and Ruby. Hopefully, this is a diverse enough collection to call this a language-agnostic answer. Generally, I would side with naming methods in keeping with your language's API.
There are things to consider that I think were missed by several other answers here
It depends if this is a C++ class method or a C function. If this is a method then it will likely be called if (user.exists()) { ... } or if (user.isExisting()) { ... }
not if (user_exists(&user)) .
This is the reason behind coding standards that state bool methods should begin with a verb since they will read like a sentence when the object is in front of them.
Unfortunately lots of old C functions return 0 for success and non-zero for failure so it can be difficult to determine the style being used unless you follow the all bool functions begin with verbs or always compare to true like so if (true == user_exists(&user))
Why not rename the property then?
if (user.isPresent()) {
Purely subjective.
I prefer userExists(...) because then statements like this read better:
if ( userExists( ... ) )
or
while ( userExists( ... ) )
In this particular case, the first example is such horrible English that it makes me wince.
I'd probably go for number three because of how it sounds when reading it in if statements. "If user exists" sounds better than "If does user exists".
This is assuming it's going to be to used in if statement tests of course...
I like any of these:
userExists(...)
isUserNameTaken(...)
User.exists(...)
User.lookup(...) != null
Method names serves for readability, only the ones fit into your whole code would be the best which most of the case it begins with conditions thus subjectPredicate follows natural sentence structure.
Since I follow the convention to put verb before function name, I would do the same here too:
//method name
public boolean doesExists(...)
//this way you can also keep a variable to store the result
bool userExists = user.doesExists()
//and use it like a english phrase
if (userExists) {...}
//or you can use the method name directly also and it will make sense here too
if (user.doesExists()) {...}
public void PublicMethod(FooBar fooBar)
{
if (fooBar == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("fooBar", "fooBar cannot be null");
// log the call [added: Thanks S.Lott]
_logger.Log("PublicMethod called with fooBar class " + fooBar.Classification);
int action = DetermineAction();
PrivateMethod(fooBar, action);
}
private void PrivateMethod(FooBar fooBar, int action)
{
if (fooBar == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("fooBar", "fooBar cannot be null"); // Is this line superfluous?
/*
Do something
*/
}
Is it OK to skip this kind of error checking in private methods if the input is already checked on the public interface? Usually there's some sort of rule-of-thumb one can go by...
Edit:
Maybe ArgumentNullException isn't such a good example because the argument can be made that you should check at both levels but return different error messages.
I would say no.
While it certainly holds true that you in this case knows that it has already been checked for nullability, in two months time the youngest intern will come along and write
PublicMethod2 that also calls PrivateMethod, but lo and behold he forgot to check for null.
Since the public method doesn't really use foobar, I'm not sure why it's checking. The current private method cares, but it's the private method's responsibility to care. Indeed, the whole point of a private method is to delegate all the responsibilities to it.
A method checks the input it actually uses; it doesn't check stuff it's just passing through.
If a different subclass has the same public method, but some different private method implementation -- one that can tolerate nulls -- what now? You have a public method that now has wrong constraints for the new subclass.
You want to do as little as possible in the public method so that various private implementations are free to do the right thing. Don't "over-check" or "just-in-case" check. Delegate responsibility.
I'd error check everything you can, you never know when something might happen that you didn't think about. (and its better safe than sorry)
When using design by contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_contract) it’s normally client’s (public method) responsibility to make correct invocation, i.e. pass on valid parameters. In this particular scenario it depends whether null belongs to a set of valid input values, therefore there are 3 options:
1) Null is valid value: throwing exceptions or errors would have meant breaking the contract, the server (private method) has to process the null and shouldn’t complain.
2) Null is invalid value and passed by code within your control: it is up to the server (private method) to decide how to react. Obviously, throwing an exception is more graceful way of handling the situation, but it has a cost of having to handle that exception somewhere else up the stack. Exceptions are not the best way to deal with violation of contract caused by programming blunders. You really should throw exceptions not when a contract is already violated but when it cannot be fulfilled because of environmental problems what cannot be controlled in software. Blunders are better handled by sticking an assertion into the beginning of the private method to check that the parameter is not null. This will keep the complexity of your code down, there is no cost of having to handle the exception up the stack and it will achieve the goal of highlighting broken contracts during testing.
3) Then there is defensive programming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_programming). When dealing with parameters passed by an external code outside your control the immediate layer of your code needs to run paranoid level of checks and return errors according to its communication contract with the external world. Then, going deeper into the code layers not exposed externally, it still makes more sense to stick to the programming by contract.
At least put a comment that PrivateMethod must have a non-null FooBar and that PublicMethod checks this.
You might want to also mark the "private" method as private or protected.
That depends if a null-value indicates an error for a method. Remember that methods could also be called messages to an object; they operate on the state of the object aswell. Parameters can specialize the kind of message sent.
If publicMethod() does not use a parameter and changes the state of the instance while privateMethod() uses the parameter, do not consider it an error in publicMethod, but do in privateMethod().
If publicMethod() does not change state, consider it an error.
You could see the latter case as providing an interface to the internal functioning of an object.
I'd consider the answer to be "yes, do the check again" because:-
The private member could be reused again in the future from a different path through the code, so program defensively against that situation.
If you perform unit tests on private methods
My view might change if I had a static analyser that could pick this up and not flag the potential use of a null reference in the private method.
In cases where PrivateMethod will be called frequently with input that has already been verified, and only rarely with user input, Then I would use the PublicMethod/PrivateMethod concept with no error checking on PrivateMethod (and with PublicMethod doing nothing other then checking the parameters and calling PrivateMethod)
I would also call the private method something like PublicMethod_impl (for "implementation") so it's clear that it's an internal use/ no checking method.
I maintain that this design leads to more robust application, as it forces you to think about what's checked when. Too often people who always check parameters fall into the trap of "I've checked something, therefore I've checked everything".
As an example of this, a former co-worker (programming in C) would, before using a pointer, always check to see if it was null. Generally, the pointers in his code were initialized as startup and never changed, so the chances of it being null were quite low. Moreover, the pointer has one correct value and 65535 possible wrong values, and he was only checking for one of those wrong values.