We Keep Coding

List of lambda suppliers, and equality [duplicate]

Say I have a List of object which were defined using lambda expressions (closures). Is there a way to inspect them so they can be compared?
The code I am most interested in is
List<Strategy> strategies = getStrategies();
Strategy a = (Strategy) this::a;
if (strategies.contains(a)) { // ...
The full code is
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.List;
public class ClosureEqualsMain {
interface Strategy {
void invoke(/*args*/);
default boolean equals(Object o) { // doesn't compile
return Closures.equals(this, o);
}
}
public void a() { }
public void b() { }
public void c() { }
public List<Strategy> getStrategies() {
return Arrays.asList(this::a, this::b, this::c);
}
private void testStrategies() {
List<Strategy> strategies = getStrategies();
System.out.println(strategies);
Strategy a = (Strategy) this::a;
// prints false
System.out.println("strategies.contains(this::a) is " + strategies.contains(a));
}
public static void main(String... ignored) {
new ClosureEqualsMain().testStrategies();
}
enum Closures {;
public static <Closure> boolean equals(Closure c1, Closure c2) {
// This doesn't compare the contents
// like others immutables e.g. String
return c1.equals(c2);
}
public static <Closure> int hashCode(Closure c) {
return // a hashCode which can detect duplicates for a Set<Strategy>
}
public static <Closure> String asString(Closure c) {
return // something better than Object.toString();
}
}
public String toString() {
return "my-ClosureEqualsMain";
}
}
It would appear the only solution is to define each lambda as a field and only use those fields. If you want to print out the method called, you are better off using Method. Is there a better way with lambda expressions?
Also, is it possible to print a lambda and get something human readable? If you print this::a instead of
ClosureEqualsMain$$Lambda$1/821270929#3f99bd52
get something like
ClosureEqualsMain.a()
or even use this.toString and the method.
my-ClosureEqualsMain.a();

This question could be interpreted relative to the specification or the implementation. Obviously, implementations could change, but you might be willing to rewrite your code when that happens, so I'll answer at both.
It also depends on what you want to do. Are you looking to optimize, or are you looking for ironclad guarantees that two instances are (or are not) the same function? (If the latter, you're going to find yourself at odds with computational physics, in that even problems as simple as asking whether two functions compute the same thing are undecidable.)
From a specification perspective, the language spec promises only that the result of evaluating (not invoking) a lambda expression is an instance of a class implementing the target functional interface. It makes no promises about the identity, or degree of aliasing, of the result. This is by design, to give implementations maximal flexibility to offer better performance (this is how lambdas can be faster than inner classes; we're not tied to the "must create unique instance" constraint that inner classes are.)
So basically, the spec doesn't give you much, except obviously that two lambdas that are reference-equal (==) are going to compute the same function.
From an implementation perspective, you can conclude a little more. There is (currently, may change) a 1:1 relationship between the synthetic classes that implement lambdas, and the capture sites in the program. So two separate bits of code that capture "x -> x + 1" may well be mapped to different classes. But if you evaluate the same lambda at the same capture site, and that lambda is non-capturing, you get the same instance, which can be compared with reference equality.
If your lambdas are serializable, they'll give up their state more easily, in exchange for sacrificing some performance and security (no free lunch.)
One area where it might be practical to tweak the definition of equality is with method references because this would enable them to be used as listeners and be properly unregistered. This is under consideration.
I think what you're trying to get to is: if two lambdas are converted to the same functional interface, are represented by the same behavior function, and have identical captured args, they're the same
Unfortunately, this is both hard to do (for non-serializable lambdas, you can't get at all the components of that) and not enough (because two separately compiled files could convert the same lambda to the same functional interface type, and you wouldn't be able to tell.)
The EG discussed whether to expose enough information to be able to make these judgments, as well as discussing whether lambdas should implement more selective equals/hashCode or more descriptive toString. The conclusion was that we were not willing to pay anything in performance cost to make this information available to the caller (bad tradeoff, punishing 99.99% of users for something that benefits .01%).
A definitive conclusion on toString was not reached but left open to be revisited in the future. However, there were some good arguments made on both sides on this issue; this is not a slam-dunk.

To compare labmdas I usually let the interface extend Serializable and then compare the serialized bytes. Not very nice but works for the most cases.

I don't see a possibility, to get those informations from the closure itself.
The closures doesn't provide state.
But you can use Java-Reflection, if you want to inspect and compare the methods.
Of course that is not a very beautiful solution, because of the performance and the exceptions, which are to catch. But this way you get those meta-informations.

Is there a way to compare lambdas?

Say I have a List of object which were defined using lambda expressions (closures). Is there a way to inspect them so they can be compared?
The code I am most interested in is
List<Strategy> strategies = getStrategies();
Strategy a = (Strategy) this::a;
if (strategies.contains(a)) { // ...
The full code is
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.List;
public class ClosureEqualsMain {
interface Strategy {
void invoke(/*args*/);
default boolean equals(Object o) { // doesn't compile
return Closures.equals(this, o);
}
}
public void a() { }
public void b() { }
public void c() { }
public List<Strategy> getStrategies() {
return Arrays.asList(this::a, this::b, this::c);
}
private void testStrategies() {
List<Strategy> strategies = getStrategies();
System.out.println(strategies);
Strategy a = (Strategy) this::a;
// prints false
System.out.println("strategies.contains(this::a) is " + strategies.contains(a));
}
public static void main(String... ignored) {
new ClosureEqualsMain().testStrategies();
}
enum Closures {;
public static <Closure> boolean equals(Closure c1, Closure c2) {
// This doesn't compare the contents
// like others immutables e.g. String
return c1.equals(c2);
}
public static <Closure> int hashCode(Closure c) {
return // a hashCode which can detect duplicates for a Set<Strategy>
}
public static <Closure> String asString(Closure c) {
return // something better than Object.toString();
}
}
public String toString() {
return "my-ClosureEqualsMain";
}
}
It would appear the only solution is to define each lambda as a field and only use those fields. If you want to print out the method called, you are better off using Method. Is there a better way with lambda expressions?
Also, is it possible to print a lambda and get something human readable? If you print this::a instead of
ClosureEqualsMain$$Lambda$1/821270929#3f99bd52
get something like
ClosureEqualsMain.a()
or even use this.toString and the method.
my-ClosureEqualsMain.a();

This question could be interpreted relative to the specification or the implementation. Obviously, implementations could change, but you might be willing to rewrite your code when that happens, so I'll answer at both.
It also depends on what you want to do. Are you looking to optimize, or are you looking for ironclad guarantees that two instances are (or are not) the same function? (If the latter, you're going to find yourself at odds with computational physics, in that even problems as simple as asking whether two functions compute the same thing are undecidable.)
From a specification perspective, the language spec promises only that the result of evaluating (not invoking) a lambda expression is an instance of a class implementing the target functional interface. It makes no promises about the identity, or degree of aliasing, of the result. This is by design, to give implementations maximal flexibility to offer better performance (this is how lambdas can be faster than inner classes; we're not tied to the "must create unique instance" constraint that inner classes are.)
So basically, the spec doesn't give you much, except obviously that two lambdas that are reference-equal (==) are going to compute the same function.
From an implementation perspective, you can conclude a little more. There is (currently, may change) a 1:1 relationship between the synthetic classes that implement lambdas, and the capture sites in the program. So two separate bits of code that capture "x -> x + 1" may well be mapped to different classes. But if you evaluate the same lambda at the same capture site, and that lambda is non-capturing, you get the same instance, which can be compared with reference equality.
If your lambdas are serializable, they'll give up their state more easily, in exchange for sacrificing some performance and security (no free lunch.)
One area where it might be practical to tweak the definition of equality is with method references because this would enable them to be used as listeners and be properly unregistered. This is under consideration.
I think what you're trying to get to is: if two lambdas are converted to the same functional interface, are represented by the same behavior function, and have identical captured args, they're the same
Unfortunately, this is both hard to do (for non-serializable lambdas, you can't get at all the components of that) and not enough (because two separately compiled files could convert the same lambda to the same functional interface type, and you wouldn't be able to tell.)
The EG discussed whether to expose enough information to be able to make these judgments, as well as discussing whether lambdas should implement more selective equals/hashCode or more descriptive toString. The conclusion was that we were not willing to pay anything in performance cost to make this information available to the caller (bad tradeoff, punishing 99.99% of users for something that benefits .01%).
A definitive conclusion on toString was not reached but left open to be revisited in the future. However, there were some good arguments made on both sides on this issue; this is not a slam-dunk.

To compare labmdas I usually let the interface extend Serializable and then compare the serialized bytes. Not very nice but works for the most cases.

I don't see a possibility, to get those informations from the closure itself.
The closures doesn't provide state.
But you can use Java-Reflection, if you want to inspect and compare the methods.
Of course that is not a very beautiful solution, because of the performance and the exceptions, which are to catch. But this way you get those meta-informations.

Is doing something else in setter methods considered having side effects?

Recently I have read some articles saying that methods having side effects is not good. So I just want to ask if my implementation here can be categorized as having side effect.
Suppose I have a SecurityGuard which checks to see if he should allow a customer to go to the club or not.
The SecurityGuard either has only list of validNames or list of invalidNames, not both.
if the SecurityGuard has only validNames, he only allows customer whose name on the list.
if the SecurityGuard has only invalidNames, he only allows customer whose name NOT on the list.
if the SecurityGuard has no lists at all, he allows everyone.
So to enforce the logic, on setter of each list, I reset the other list if the new list has value.
class SecurityGaurd {
private List<String> validNames = new ArrayList<>();
private List<String> invalidNames = new ArrayList<>();
public void setValidNames(List<String> newValidNames) {
this.validNames = new ArrayList<>(newValidNames);
// empty the invalidNames if newValidNames has values
if (!this.validNames.isEmpty()) {
this.invalidNames = new ArrayList<>();
}
}
public void setInvalidNames(List<String> newInvalidNames) {
this.invalidNames = new ArrayList<>(newInvalidNames);
// empty the validNames if newInvalidNames has values
if (!this.invalidNames.isEmpty()) {
this.validNames = new ArrayList<>(); //empty the validNames
}
}
public boolean allowCustomerToPass(String customerName) {
if (!validNames.isEmpty()) {
return validNames.contains(customerName);
}
return !invalidNames.contains(customerName);
}
}
So here you can see the setter methods have an implicit action, it resets the other list.
The question is what I'm doing here could be considered having a side effect? Is it bad enough so that we have to change it? And if yes, how can I improve this?
Thanks in advance.

Well, setters themselves have side effects (A value in that instance is left modified after the function ends). So, no, I wouldn't consider it something bad that needs to be changed.

Imagine that the guard just had one SetAdmissionPolicy which accepted a reference to an AdmissionPolicy defined:
interface AdmissionPolicy {
boolean isAcceptable(String customerName) {
}
and set the guard's admissionPolicy field to the passed-in reference. The guard's own allowCustomerToPass method simply called admissionPolicy.isAcceptable(customerName);.
Given the above definitions, one can imagine three classes that implement AdmissionPolicy: one would accept a list in its constructor, and isAcceptable would return true for everyone on the list, another would also accept a list in its constructor, but its isAcceptable would return true only for people not on the list. A third would simply return true unconditionally. If the club needs to close occasionally, one might also have a fourth implementation that returned false unconditionally.
Viewed in such a way, setInvalidNames and setValidNames could both be implemented as:
public void setAdmissionPolicyAdmitOnly(List<String> newValidNames) {
admissionPolicy = new AdmitOnlyPolicy(newValidNames);
}
public void setAdmissionPolicyAdmitAllBut(List<String> newInvalidNames) {
admissionPolicy = new AdmitAllButPolicy(newInvalidNames);
}
With such an implementation, it would be clear that each method was only "setting" one thing; such an implementation is how I would expect a class such as yours to behave.
The behavior of your class as described, however, I would regard as dubious at best. The issue isn't so much that adding admitted items clears out the rejected items, but rather that the behavior when a passed-in list is empty depends upon the earlier state in a rather bizarre fashion. It's hardly intuitive that if everyone but Fred is allowed access, calling setValidNames to nothing should have no effect, but if it's set to only allow George access that same call should grant access to everyone. Further, while it would not be unexpected that setValidNames would remove from invalidNames anyone who was included in the valid-names list nor vice versa, given the way the functions are named, the fact that setting one list removes everyone from the other list is somewhat unexpected (the different behavior with empty lists makes it especially so).

It does not have any side effect although , its assumed by developers that getters and setters may not have any underlying code apart from getting and setting the variable. Hence when another developer tries to maintain the code , he would probably overlook at your code of the Bean and do the same checks as done by you in the setters - Possible Boiler Plate code as you would call it

I'd not consider it as a side effect. You are maintaining the underlying assumptions of your object. I'm not sure it's the best design, but it's certainly a working one.

In this case I don't think changing the other linkedlist will be a side affect, since the scope is within this class.
However, based on your description, maybe it is better design to have one linkedList (called nameList) and a boolean (isValid) that differentiate between a whitelist and a blacklist. This way it is clear that only one type of list be filled at any time.

I think it's OK. E.g. if you want your class to be immutable the best place to do it is setter:
public void setNames(List<String> names) {
this.names = names == null ? Collections.emptyList() : Collections.unmodifiableList(names);
}

Passing a parameter versus returning it from function

As it might be clear from the title which approach should we prefer?
Intention is to pass a few method parameters and get something as output. We can pass another parameter and method will update it and method need not to return anything now, method will just update output variable and it will be reflected to the caller.
I am just trying to frame the question through this example.
List<String> result = new ArrayList<String>();
for (int i = 0; i < SOME_NUMBER_N; i++) {
fun(SOME_COLLECTION.get(i), result);
}
// in some other class
public void fun(String s, List<String> result) {
// populates result
}
versus
List<String> result = new ArrayList<String>();
for (int i = 0; i < SOME_NUMBER_N; i++) {
List<String> subResult = fun(SOME_COLLECTION.get(i));
// merges subResult into result
mergeLists(result, subResult);
}
// in some other class
public List<String> fun(String s) {
List<String> res = new ArrayList<String>();
// some processing to populate res
return res;
}
I understand that one passes the reference and another doesn't.
Which one should we prefer (in different situations) and why?
Update: Consider it only for mutable objects.

Returning a value from the function is generally a cleaner way of writing code. Passing a value and modifying it is more C/C++ style due to the nature of creating and destroying pointers.
Developers generally don't expect that their values will be modified by passing it through a function, unless the function explicitly states it modifies the value (and we often skim documentation anyway).
There are exceptions though.
Consider the example of Collections.sort, which does actually do an in place sort of a list. Imagine a list of 1 million items and you are sorting that. Maybe you don't want to create a second list that has another 1 million entries (even though these entries are pointing back to the original).
It is also good practice to favor having immutable objects. Immutable objects cause far fewer problems in most aspects of development (such as threading). So by returning a new object, you are not forcing the parameter to be mutable.
The important part is to be clear about your intentions in the methods. My recommendation is to avoid modifying the parameter when possible since it not the most typical behavior in Java.

You should return it. The second example you provided is the way to go.
First of all, its more clear. When other people read your code, there's no gotcha that they might not notice that the parameter is being modified as output. You can try to name the variables, but when it comes to code readability, its preferable.
The BIG reason why you should return it rather than pass it, is with immutable objects.
Your example, the List, is mutable, so it works okay.
But if you were to try to use a String that way, it would not work.
As strings are immutable, if you pass a string in as a parameter, and then the function were to say:
public void fun(String result){
result = "new string";
}
The value of result that you passed in would not be altered. Instead, the local scope variable 'result' now points to a new string inside of fun, but the result in your calling method still points to the original string.
If you called:
String test = "test";
fun(test);
System.out.println(test);
It will print: "test", not "new string"!
So definitely, it is superior to return. :)

This is more about best practices and your own method to program. I would say if you know this is going to be a one value return type function like:
function IsThisNumberAPrimeNumber{ }
Then you know that this is only going to ever return a boolean. I usually use functions as helper programs and not as large sub procedures. I also apply naming conventions that help dictate what I expect the sub\function will return.
Examples:
GetUserDetailsRecords
GetUsersEmailAddress
IsEmailRegistered
If you look at those 3 names, you can tell the first is going to give you some list or class of multiple user detail records, the second will give you a string value of a email and the third will likely give you a boolean value. If you change the name, you change the meaning, so I would say consider this in addition.

The reason I don't think we understand is that those are two totally different types of actions. Passing a variable to a function is a means of giving a function data. Returning it from the function is a way of passing data out of a function.
If you mean the difference between these two actions:
public void doStuff(int change) {
change = change * 2;
}
and
public void doStuff() {
int change = changeStorage.acquireChange();
change = change * 2;
}
Then the second is generally cleaner, however there are several reasons (security, function visibilty, etc) that can prevent you from passing data this way.
It's also preferable because it makes reusing code easier, as well as making it more modular.

according to guys recommendation and java code convention and also syntax limitation this is a bad idea and makes code harder to understand
BUT you can do it by implementing a reference holder class
public class ReferenceHolder<T>{
public T value;
}
and pass an object of ReferenceHolder into method parameter to be filled or modified by method.
on the other side that method must assign its return into Reference value instead of returning it.
here is the code for getting result of an average method by a ReferenceHolder instead of function return.
public class ReferenceHolderTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ReferenceHolder<Double> out = new ReferenceHolder<>();
average(new int[]{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8},out);
System.out.println(out.value);
}
public static void average(int[] x, ReferenceHolder<Double> out ) {
int sum=0;
for (int a : x) {
sum+=a;
}
out.value=sum/(double)x.length;
}
}

Returning it will keep your code cleaner and cause less coupling between methods/classes.

It is generally preferable to return it.
Specially from a unit testing standpoint. If you are unit testing it
is easier to assert a returned value from a method than verifying if
your object was modified or interacted correctly. (Using
ArgumentCaptor or ArgumentMatcher to assert interactions isn't as
straight forward as a simple return assertion).
Increased code readability. If I see a method that takes 5 object parameters I
might have no immediate way of knowing you plan on modifying one of
those references for future use downstream. Instead if you are returning an
object, I can easily see you ultimately care about the result of that
method's computation.

Should Java method arguments be used to return multiple values?

Since arguments sent to a method in Java point to the original data structures in the caller method, did its designers intend for them to used for returning multiple values, as is the norm in other languages like C ?
Or is this a hazardous misuse of Java's general property that variables are pointers ?

A long time ago I had a conversation with Ken Arnold (one time member of the Java team), this would have been at the first Java One conference probably, so 1996. He said that they were thinking of adding multiple return values so you could write something like:
x, y = foo();
The recommended way of doing it back then, and now, is to make a class that has multiple data members and return that instead.
Based on that, and other comments made by people who worked on Java, I would say the intent is/was that you return an instance of a class rather than modify the arguments that were passed in.
This is common practice (as is the desire by C programmers to modify the arguments... eventually they see the Java way of doing it usually. Just think of it as returning a struct. :-)
(Edit based on the following comment)
I am reading a file and generating two
arrays, of type String and int from
it, picking one element for both from
each line. I want to return both of
them to any function which calls it
which a file to split this way.
I think, if I am understanding you correctly, tht I would probably do soemthing like this:
// could go with the Pair idea from another post, but I personally don't like that way
class Line
{
// would use appropriate names
private final int intVal;
private final String stringVal;
public Line(final int iVal, final String sVal)
{
intVal = iVal;
stringVal = sVal;
}
public int getIntVal()
{
return (intVal);
}
public String getStringVal()
{
return (stringVal);
}
// equals/hashCode/etc... as appropriate
}
and then have your method like this:
public void foo(final File file, final List<Line> lines)
{
// add to the List.
}
and then call it like this:
{
final List<Line> lines;
lines = new ArrayList<Line>();
foo(file, lines);
}

In my opinion, if we're talking about a public method, you should create a separate class representing a return value. When you have a separate class:
it serves as an abstraction (i.e. a Point class instead of array of two longs)
each field has a name
can be made immutable
makes evolution of API much easier (i.e. what about returning 3 instead of 2 values, changing type of some field etc.)
I would always opt for returning a new instance, instead of actually modifying a value passed in. It seems much clearer to me and favors immutability.
On the other hand, if it is an internal method, I guess any of the following might be used:
an array (new Object[] { "str", longValue })
a list (Arrays.asList(...) returns immutable list)
pair/tuple class, such as this
static inner class, with public fields
Still, I would prefer the last option, equipped with a suitable constructor. That is especially true if you find yourself returning the same tuple from more than one place.

I do wish there was a Pair<E,F> class in JDK, mostly for this reason. There is Map<K,V>.Entry, but creating an instance was always a big pain.
Now I use com.google.common.collect.Maps.immutableEntry when I need a Pair

See this RFE launched back in 1999:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4222792
I don't think the intention was to ever allow it in the Java language, if you need to return multiple values you need to encapsulate them in an object.
Using languages like Scala however you can return tuples, see:
http://www.artima.com/scalazine/articles/steps.html
You can also use Generics in Java to return a pair of objects, but that's about it AFAIK.
EDIT: Tuples
Just to add some more on this. I've previously implemented a Pair in projects because of the lack within the JDK. Link to my implementation is here:
http://pbin.oogly.co.uk/listings/viewlistingdetail/5003504425055b47d857490ff73ab9
Note, there isn't a hashcode or equals on this, which should probably be added.
I also came across this whilst doing some research into this questions which provides tuple functionality:
http://javatuple.com/
It allows you to create Pair including other types of tuples.

You cannot truly return multiple values, but you can pass objects into a method and have the method mutate those values. That is perfectly legal. Note that you cannot pass an object in and have the object itself become a different object. That is:
private void myFunc(Object a) {
a = new Object();
}
will result in temporarily and locally changing the value of a, but this will not change the value of the caller, for example, from:
Object test = new Object();
myFunc(test);
After myFunc returns, you will have the old Object and not the new one.
Legal (and often discouraged) is something like this:
private void changeDate(final Date date) {
date.setTime(1234567890L);
}
I picked Date for a reason. This is a class that people widely agree should never have been mutable. The the method above will change the internal value of any Date object that you pass to it. This kind of code is legal when it is very clear that the method will mutate or configure or modify what is being passed in.
NOTE: Generally, it's said that a method should do one these things:
Return void and mutate its incoming objects (like Collections.sort()), or
Return some computation and don't mutate incoming objects at all (like Collections.min()), or
Return a "view" of the incoming object but do not modify the incoming object (like Collections.checkedList() or Collections.singleton())
Mutate one incoming object and return it (Collections doesn't have an example, but StringBuilder.append() is a good example).
Methods that mutate incoming objects and return a separate return value are often doing too many things.

There are certainly methods that modify an object passed in as a parameter (see java.io.Reader.read(byte[] buffer) as an example, but I have not seen parameters used as an alternative for a return value, especially with multiple parameters. It may technically work, but it is nonstandard.

It's not generally considered terribly good practice, but there are very occasional cases in the JDK where this is done. Look at the 'biasRet' parameter of View.getNextVisualPositionFrom() and related methods, for example: it's actually a one-dimensional array that gets filled with an "extra return value".
So why do this? Well, just to save you having to create an extra class definition for the "occasional extra return value". It's messy, inelegant, bad design, non-object-oriented, blah blah. And we've all done it from time to time...

Generally what Eddie said, but I'd add one more:
Mutate one of the incoming objects, and return a status code. This should generally only be used for arguments that are explicitly buffers, like Reader.read(char[] cbuf).

I had a Result object that cascades through a series of validating void methods as a method parameter. Each of these validating void methods would mutate the result parameter object to add the result of the validation.
But this is impossible to test because now I cannot stub the void method to return a stub value for the validation in the Result object.
So, from a testing perspective it appears that one should favor returning a object instead of mutating a method parameter.