We Keep Coding

Using optionals, is it possible to return early on "ifPresent" without adding a separate if-else statement?

public Void traverseQuickestRoute(){ // Void return-type from interface
findShortCutThroughWoods()
.map(WoodsShortCut::getTerrainDifficulty)
.ifPresent(this::walkThroughForestPath) // return in this case
if(isBikePresent()){
return cycleQuickestRoute()
}
....
}
Is there a way to exit the method at the ifPresent?
In case it is not possible, for other people with similar use-cases: I see two alternatives
Optional<MappedRoute> woodsShortCut = findShortCutThroughWoods();
if(woodsShortCut.isPresent()){
TerrainDifficulty terrainDifficulty = woodsShortCut.get().getTerrainDifficulty();
return walkThroughForrestPath(terrainDifficulty);
}
This feels more ugly than it needs to be and combines if/else with functional programming.
A chain of orElseGet(...) throughout the method does not look as nice, but is also a possibility.

return is a control statement. Neither lambdas (arrow notation), nor method refs (WoodsShortcut::getTerrainDifficulty) support the idea of control statements that move control to outside of themselves.
Thus, the answer is a rather trivial: Nope.
You have to think of the stream 'pipeline' as the thing you're working on. So, the question could be said differently: Can I instead change this code so that I can modify how this one pipeline operation works (everything starting at findShortCut() to the semicolon at the end of all the method invokes you do on the stream/optional), and then make this one pipeline operation the whole method.
Thus, the answer is: orElseGet is probably it.
Disappointing, perhaps. 'functional' does not strike me as the right answer here. The problem is, there are things for/if/while loops can do that 'functional' cannot do. So, if you are faced with a problem that is simpler to tackle using 'a thing that for/if/while is good at but functional is bad at', then it is probably a better plan to just use for/if/while then.
One of the core things lambdas can't do are about the transparencies. Lambdas are non-transparant in regards to these 3:
Checked exception throwing. try { list.forEach(x -> throw new IOException()); } catch (IOException e) {} isn't legal even though your human brain can trivially tell it should be fine.
(Mutable) local variables. int x = 5; list.forEach(y -> x += y); does not work. Often there are ways around this (list.mapToInt(Integer::intValue).sum() in this example), but not always.
Control flow. list.forEach(y -> {if (y < 0) return y;}); does not work.
So, keep in mind, you really have only 2 options:
Continually retrain yourself to not think in terms of such control flow. You find orElseGet 'not as nice'. I concur, but if you really want to blanket apply functional to as many places as you can possibly apply it, the whole notion of control flow out of a lambda needs not be your go-to plan, and you definitely can't keep thinking 'this code is not particularly nice because it would be simpler if I could control flow out', you're going to be depressed all day programming in this style. The day you never even think about it anymore is the day you have succeeded in retraining yourself to 'think more functional', so to speak.
Stop thinking that 'functional is always better'. Given that there are so many situations where their downsides are so significant, perhaps it is not a good idea to pre-suppose that the lambda/methodref based solution must somehow be superior. Apply what seems correct. That should often be "Actually just a plain old for loop is fine. Better than fine; it's the right, most elegant1 answer here".
[1] "This code is elegant" is, of course, a non-falsifiable statement. It's like saying "The Mona Lisa is a pretty painting". You can't make a logical argument to prove this and it is insanity to try. "This code is elegant" boils down to saying "I think it is prettier", it cannot boil down to an objective fact. That also means in team situations there's no point in debating such things. Either everybody gets to decide what 'elegant' is (hold a poll, maybe?), or you install a dictator that decrees what elegance is. If you want to fix that and have meaningful debate, the term 'elegant' needs to be defined in terms of objective, falsifiable statements. I would posit that things like:
in face of expectable future change requests, this style is easier to modify
A casual glance at code leaves a first impression. Whichever style has the property that this first impression is accurate - is better (in other words, code that confuses or misleads the casual glancer is bad). Said even more differently: Code that really needs comments to avoid confusion is worse than code that is self-evident.
this code looks familiar to a wide array of java programmers
this code consists of fewer AST nodes (the more accurate from of 'fewer lines = better')
this code has simpler semantic hierarchy (i.e. fewer indents)
Those are the kinds of things that should define 'elegance'. Under almost all of those definitions, 'an if statement' is as good or better in this specific case!

For example:
public Void traverseQuickestRoute() {
return findShortCutThroughWoods()
.map(WoodsShortCut::getTerrainDifficulty)
.map(this::walkThroughForestPath)
.orElseGet(() -> { if (isBikePresent()) { return cycleQuickestRoute(); } });
}

There is Optional#ifPresentOrElse with an extra Runnable for the else case. Since java 9.
public Void traverseQuickestRoute() { // Void return-type from interface
findShortCutThroughWoods()
.map(WoodsShortCut::getTerrainDifficulty)
.ifPresentOrElse(this::walkThroughForestPath,
this::alternative);
return null;
}
private void alternative() {
if (isBikePresent()) {
return cycleQuickestRoute()
}
...
}
I would split the method as above. Though for short code () -> { ... } might be readable.

Unknown operator [colon] used with while loop java

while browsing some source code i noticed a weird operator being used on a while loop
topLoop: while(dist < 0){
random code...
}
what does the 'topLoop:' mean in this situation? and what does it do to the while exactly?
p.s. topLoop is just a int defined earlier on in the code.

The colon is not an operator. The topLoop: is called a label. You can use it, for example, to directly jump from a nested loop to outside the outer loop.
There's probably a break topLoop; statement somewhere inside the loop that you didn't show. This will make execution jump to the topLoop label.
Labels are used only seldomly in practice, and in my opinion using labels is bad practice - they are a kind of goto statement, and using them can quickly make your code a hard to understand, tangled mess.
p.s. topLoop is just a int defined earlier on in the code.
Maybe the code has a variable named topLoop, but this has nothing to do with the label that happens to have the same name.

Break from other class possible?

I recently rediscovered the use of breaking back to a label. Now I'm wondering if it is possible to break back to a label from another class.
Example of what i want:
Main.class
label:
for (Product p : ProductList) {
if (p.getSet() == true) {
classHandler();
}
}
Classhandler.class
someFunction() {
break label;
}
While I was typing this I actually tried making a local function in my Main class (so I could just call that function instead) but even there I got the undefined label: label error.

No, you can't. And you shouldn't.
If the condition for breaking is some problem, then throwing an exception would be the correct approach.
Otherwise you should do something like returning a flag that indicates if other products should still be handled and reacting on that in your loop.
As you noticed you can't even break through method-borders, and that's a good thing. break and continue are powerful tools, but can easily make your code confusing, if used in the wrong way. For example a break hidden inside a huge code block can be easy to miss, but if you use a continue at the very top of a method to skip an iteration based on some condition, then the intention is pretty clear.

The label that you break to must be in scope. From the java sun documentation:
A break statement with label Identifier attempts to transfer control
to the enclosing labeled statement (§14.7) that has the same
Identifier as its label; this statement, which is called the break
target, then immediately completes normally. In this case, the break
target need not be a while, do, for, or switch statement. A break
statement must refer to a label within the immediately enclosing
method or initializer block. There are no non-local jumps

No, you cannot. That does not even work between two methods of the same class. Labels are scoped (at the most) within a single method.

It doesn't make sense, since there is no guarantee that label exists, not even that someFunction() is called within a loop.

Named blocks to limit variable scope: good idea?

For years, I've been using named blocks to limit the scope of temporary variables. I've never seen this done anywhere else, which makes me wonder if this is a bad idea. Especially since the Eclipse IDE flags these as warnings by default.
I've used this to good effect, I think, in my own code. But since it is un-idiomatic to the point where good programmers will distrust it when they see it, I really have two ways to go from here:
avoid doing it, or
promote it, with the hope that it will become an idiom.
Example (within a larger method):
final Date nextTuesday;
initNextTuesday: {
GregorianCalendar cal = new GregorianCalendar();
... // About 5-10 lines of setting the calendar fields
nextTuesday = cal.getTime();
}
Here I'm using a GregorianCalendar just to initialize a date, and I want to make sure that I don't accidentally reuse it.
Some people have commented that you don't actually need to name the block. While that's true, a raw block looks even more like a bug, as the intent is unclear. Furthermore, naming something encourages you to think about the intention of the block. The goal here is to identify distinct sections of code, not to give every temporary variable its own scope.
Many people have commented that it's best to go straight to small methods. I agree that this should be your first instinct. However, there may be several mitigating factors:
To even consider a named block, the code should be short, one-off code that will never be called elsewhere.
A named block is a quick way to organize an oversized method without creating a one-off method with a dozen parameters. This is especially true when a class is in flux, and the inputs are likely to change from version to version.
Creating a new method encourages its reuse, which may be ill-advised if the use cases aren't well-established. A named block is easier (psychologically, at least) to throw away.
Especially for unit tests, you may need to define a dozen different objects for one-off assertions, and they are just different enough that you can't (yet) find a way to consolidate them into a small number of methods, nor can you think of a way to distinguish them with names that aren't a mile long.
Advantages of using the named scope:
Can't accidentally reuse temporary variables
Limited scope gives garbage collector and JIT compiler more information about programmer intent
Block name provides a comment on a block of code, which I find more readable than open-ended comments
Makes it easier to refactor code out of a big method into little methods, or vice versa, since the named block is easier to separate than unstructured code.
Disadvantages:
Not idiomatic: programmers who haven't seen this use of named blocks (i.e. everyone but me) assume it's buggy, since they can't find references to the block name. (Just like Eclipse does.) And getting something to become idiomatic is an uphill battle.
It can be used as an excuse for bad programming habits, such as:
Making huge, monolithic methods where several small methods would be more legible.
Layers of indentation too deep to read easily.
Note: I've edited this question extensively, based on some thoughtful responses. Thanks!

I'd just go straight for refactoring into smaller methods. If a method is big enough that it needs breaking up like this, it really needs breaking up into multiple methods if at all possible.
While limiting scope is nice, this isn't really what named blocks are for. It's unidiomatic, which is very rarely a good thing.

If this was bad, then why is this a feature in the language! It's got a purpose, and you've found it.
I often write code exactly as in your example. When you want to initialize a variable, and there's a little calculation that needs doing to work out what that should be, and that involves a couple of variables... then you don't want those variables hanging around for the entire scope of your function, then a little scope to contain the initialization works great.
Mini scopes are an easy way to break code into 'paragraphs'. If you split into methods you can make the code harder to navigate when those methods don't get called from anywhere else and have a serial kind of order in which they need to be executed.
It's always a balance, but if you think it's going to be easiest to maintain and it actually adds value to a future reader of your code if its all inline, then go for it.
There are no hard and fast rules. I get a little fed up sometimes with co-workers who excessively put everything into its own method or class or file, and this becomes a nightmare to navigate. There's a nice balance somewhere!

Sometimes I use unnamed blocks to isolate mutable things needed to prepare some immutable thing. Instead of having a label I put the Block under the immutable variable declaration.
final String example;
{
final StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
sb.append(i);
example = sb.toString();
}
When I find some other use for the block, or just think that it's in the way, I turn it into a method.

Using blocks to limit scope is a good technique in my book.
But since you're using the label to do the work of a comment, why not just use an actual comment instead? This would remove the confusion about the unreferenced label.

This is the 1st time I am seeing someone else using blocks. whew! I thought I was the only one. I know that I didn't invent it -- remembered reading it somewhere -- possibly from my previous C++ world.
I don't use the labels, though and just comment what I'm doing.
I don't agree with all the guys that are asking you extract it into a method. Most of the things we don in such blocks aren't really reusable blocks. It makes sense in a big initialization AND YES, I've used blocks to prevent COPY/PASTE errors.
BR,
~A

If you have 5-10 lines of code that can safely be put into a block like that, the same code could just as well be extracted into a method.
This might seem like it's only a semantic difference, but at least with extracting into a method then you would gain the benefit of the ability of re-use.

Just because they exist doesn't mean they should be used. Most of the advantages gained from using named blocks are better gained by using a new private method.
You won't be able to use the temporary variables declared in the new method
The GC and JIT Compiler will glean the same info by using a new method
Using a descriptive name for the new method (using "private Date initNextTuesday()" in your case) will allow for the self commenting code advantage
No need to refactor code when you have already "pre-factored" it
In addition to these benefits, you also get code reuse benefits and it will shorten your long methods.

I'd use a block with a comment rather adding a label there.
When I see a label, I can't assume that nothing else is referencing the block.
If I change the behavior of the block, then the label name may not be appropriate any more. But I can't just reach out and change it: I'll have to look through the rest of the method to determine what label is calling out to the block. At which point I'll figure out that it's an unreferenced label.
Using a comment is clearer in this instance, because it describes the behavior of the block without imposing any extra work on the part of the maintainer.

It's a good technique in my book. Managing large numbers of throwaway methods is evil and the reasons you're providing for naming the blocks are good.
What does the generated bytecode look like? That'd be my only hesitation. I suspect it strips away the block name and might even benefit from greater optimizations. But you'd have to check.

Sorry for resurrecting this, but I didn't see anyone mention what I consider to be a very important point. Let's look at your example:
final Date nextTuesday;
initNextTuesday: {
GregorianCalendar cal = new GregorianCalendar();
... // About 5-10 lines of setting the calendar fields
nextTuesday = cal.getTime();
}
Including this initialization logic here makes it easier to understand if you're reading the file from top to bottom and care about every line. But think about how you read code. Do you start reading from the top of a file and continue to the bottom? Of course not! The only time you would ever do that is during a code review. Instead, you probably have a starting point based on previous knowledge, a stack trace, etc. Then you drill further down/up through the execution path until you find what you're looking for. Optimize for reading based on execution path, not code reviews.
Does the person reading the code that uses nextTuesday really want to read about how it's initialized? I would argue that the only information that they need is that there's a Date corresponding to next Tuesday. All of this information is contained in its declaration. This is a perfect example of code that should be broken into a private method, because it isn't necessary to understand the logic that the reader cares about.
final Date nextTuesday;
initNextTuesday: {
GregorianCalendar cal = new GregorianCalendar();
//1
//2
//3
//4
//5
nextTuesday = cal.getTime();
}
vs:
final Date nextTuesday = getNextTuesday();
Which would you rather read on your way through a module?

Name Blocks helps: Using break as a Form of Goto
Using break as a civilized form of goto.
class Break {
public static void main(String args[]) {
boolean t = true;
first: {
second: {
third: {
System.out.println("Before the break.");
if (t)
break second; // break out of second block
System.out.println("This won't execute");
}
System.out.println("This won't execute");
}
System.out.println("This is after second block.");
}
}
}
Using break to exit from nested loops
class BreakLoop4 {
public static void main(String args[]) {
outer: for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
System.out.print("Pass " + i + ": ");
for (int j = 0; j < 100; j++) {
if (j == 10)
break outer; // exit both loops
System.out.print(j + " ");
}
System.out.println("This will not print");
}
System.out.println("Loops complete.");
}
}
Source Link

I have done this in some of my c#. I didn't know you could name the blocks though, I'll have to try that see if it works in c# too.
I think the scope block can be a nice idea, because you can encapsulate code specific to something within a block of code, where you might not want to split it out into its own function.
As for the disadvantage of nesting them, I see that as more of a fault of a programmer not of scope blocks themselves.

Named scopes are technically ok here, it's just they aren't used in this way very often. Therefore, when someone else comes to maintain your code in the future it may not be immediately obvious why they are there. IMHO a private helper method would be a better choice...

I love the idea of using block to limit var scope.
So many times I was confused by short-lived vars given large scope which should go away immediately after use. Long method + many non-final vars make it difficult to reason about the coder's intention, especially when comments are rare. Considering much of the logic I see in a method were like below
Type foo(args..){
declare ret
...
make temp vars to add information on ret
...
make some more temp vars to add info on ret. not much related to above code. but previously declared vars are still alive
...
return ret
}
if vars can have smaller scope than the entire method body, I can quickly forget most of them (good thing).
Also I agree that too many or too few private things leads to spaghetti code.
Actually what I was looking for was something like nested method in functional languages, and seems its cousin in Java is a {BLOCK} (inner class and labmda expression are not for this..).
However, I would prefer to use a unnamed block since this may be misleading to people trying to find the reference to the label, plus I can explain better with commented block.
For using a private method, I would consider it as the next step of using blocks.

Java Coding standard / best practices - naming convention for break/continue labels

Sometimes a labeled break or continue can make code a lot more readable.
OUTERLOOP: for ( ;/*stuff*/; ) {
//...lots of code
if ( isEnough() ) break OUTERLOOP;
//...more code
}
I was wondering what the common convention for the labels was. All caps? first cap?

I don't understand where this "don't use labels" rule comes from. When doing non-trivial looping logic, the test to break or continue isn't always neatly at the end of the surrounding block.
outer_loop:
for (...) {
// some code
for (...) {
// some code
if (...)
continue outer_loop;
// more code
}
// more code
}
Yes, cases like this do happen all the time. What are people suggesting I use instead? A boolean condition like this?
for (...) {
// some code
boolean continueOuterLoop = false;
for (...) {
// some code
if (...) {
continueOuterLoop = true;
break;
}
// more code
}
if (continueOuterLoop)
continue;
// more code
}
Yuck! Refactoring it as a method doesn't alleviate that either:
boolean innerLoop (...) {
for (...) {
// some code
if (...) {
return true;
}
// more code
}
return false;
}
for (...) {
// some code
if (innerLoop(...))
continue;
// more code
}
Sure it's a little prettier, but it's still passing around a superfluous boolean. And if the inner loop modified local variables, refactoring it into a method isn't always the correct solution.
So why are you all against labels? Give me some solid reasons, and practical alternatives for the above case.

If you have to use them use capitals, this draws attention to them and singles them out from being mistakenly interpreted as "Class" names. Drawing attention to them has the additional benefit of catching someone's eye that will come along and refactor your code and remove them. ;)

The convention is to avoid labels altogether.
There are very, very few valid reasons to use a label for breaking out of a loop. Breaking out is ok, but you can remove the need to break at all by modifying your design a little. In the example you have given, you would extract the 'Lots of code' sections and put them in individual methods with meaningful names.
for ( ;/*stuff*/; )
{
lotsOfCode();
if ( !isEnough() )
{
moreCode();
}
}
Edit: having seen the actual code in question (over here), I think the use of labels is probably the best way to make the code readable. In most cases using labels is the wrong approach, in this instance, I think it is fine.

Sun's Java code style seem to prefer naming labels in the same way as variables, meaning camel case with the first letter in lower case.

The convention I've most seen is simply camel case, like a method name...
myLabel:
but I've also seen labels prefixed with an underscore
_myLabel:
or with lab...
labSomething:
You can probably sense though from the other answers that you'll be hard-pushed to find a coding standard that says anything other than 'Don't use labels'. The answer then I guess is that you should use whatever style makes sense to you, as long as it's consistent.

wrt sadie's code example:
You gave
outerloop:
for (...) {
// some code
for (...) {
// some code
if (...)
continue outerloop;
// more code
}
// more code
}
As an example. You make a good point. My best guess would be:
public void lookMumNoLabels() {
for (...) {
// some code
doMoreInnerCodeLogic(...);
}
}
private void doMoreInnerCodeLogic(...) {
for (...) {
// some code
if (...) return;
}
}
But there would be examples where that kind of refactoring doesn't sit correctly with whatever logic you're doing.

As labels are so rarely useful, it appears, that there is no clear convention. The Java language specification has one example with labels and they are in non_cap.
But since they are so rare, in my opinion it is best, to think twice whether they are really the right tool.
And if they are the right tool, make them all caps so that other developers (or yourself later on) realize them as something unusual right away. (as Craig already pointed out)

The convetion/best practise would still be not to use them at all and to refactor the code so that is more readable using extract as method.

They are kind of the goto of Java - not sure if C# has them. I have never used them in practice, I can't think of a case where avoiding them wouldn't result in much more readable code.
But if you have to- I think all caps is ok. Most people won't use labelled breaks, so when they see the code, the caps will jump out at them and will force them to realise what is going on.

I know, I should not use labels.
But just assume, I have some code, that could gain a lot in readability from labeled breaks, how do I format them.
Mo, your premise is wrong.
The question shouldn't be 'how do I format them?'
Your question should be 'I have code that has a large amount of logic inside loops - how do I make it more readable?'
The answer to that question is to move the code into individual, well named functions. Then you don't need to label the breaks at all.