Develop Reference

Java double colon operator from compile time to byte code generation?

In this question the author uses the following example:
#Override
public final OptionalInt max() {
return reduce(Math::max); //this is the gotcha line
}
So in this case it looks as if max() is a proxy for Math.max on the instance of this class. However there are no arguments passed to max, so does java 8 compile this to something like (Pseudo code):
#Override
public final OptionalInt max(Integer a, Integer b) {
//If neither a or b are null
return new OptionalInt.of(Math.max(a,b));
//Otherwise return empty because we can't compare the numbers
return OptionalInt.empty()
}
Also how would one write the javadoc for something like this?

So in this case it looks as if max() is a proxy for Math.max on the instance of this class. However there are no arguments passed to max, so does java 8 compile this to something like (Pseudo code):
#Override
public final OptionalInt max(Integer a, Integer b) {
//If neither a or b are null
return new OptionalInt.of(Math.max(a,b));
//Otherwise return empty because we can't compare the numbers
return OptionalInt.empty()
}
Not quite :). Let's start by figuring out what the reduce operator actually does. The documentation explains that it performs a reduction on a sequence of numbers by applying an algorithm that is logically equivalent to the following:
public OptionalInt reduce(IntBinaryOperator op) {
boolean foundAny = false;
int result = 0;
for (int element : [this stream]) {
if (!foundAny) {
foundAny = true;
result = element;
}
else {
result = op.applyAsInt(result, element);
}
}
return foundAny ? OptionalInt.of(result)
: OptionalInt.empty();
}
Seems simple enough. If you can tell it how to take two numbers and 'reduce' or 'combine' them into one, then reduce knows how to extend that logic to reduce an entire sequence into a single number. It handles the edge cases and the aggregation for you. All it needs from you is a function that takes in two numbers and gives it one back. That function should conform to the functional interface IntBinaryOperator.
A functional interface is an interface that is meant to describe a single function. Specifically, it describes the argument types and the return type. The rest is largely superfluous. The signature for an IntBinaryOperator looks like this:
int applyAsInt(int left, int right);
You can provide a function that conforms to this specification in several ways. Prior to Java 8, you might have done something like this:
stream.reduce(
new IntBinaryOperator() {
public int applyAsInt(int a, int b) {
return b > a ? b : a;
}
}
);
Java 8 gives us a shorthand form for functional interfaces called lambda expressions. These are a bit more concise, and while they are conceptually similar to anonymous inner classes, they're not quite the same thing.
stream.reduce((a, b) -> b > a ? b : a);
Both functions above are equivalent: they take in two numbers and return the larger of the two. As it turns out, every standard programming library has a function that does exactly the same thing. In Java, that function is Math.max. So rather than writing this logic myself, I can delegate to Math.max:
stream.reduce((a, b) -> Math.max(a, b));
But wait! All reduce wants is a function that takes two numbers and returns one. Math.max does that, so do I even need to wrap it in a lambda? It turns out I don't; I can tell reduce to just call Math.max directly:
stream.reduce(Math::max);
This says "I know you want a function, so I'm show you by name where to find one that's already been written". The compiler knows that Math.max conforms to the (int, int) -> int specification we need, so it emits some bytecode telling the VM how to 'bootstrap' it once it's needed. When the JVM hits your call to reduce, it calls a special method that generates a wrapper class implementing IntBinaryOperator that delegates to Math.max in its implementation of applyAsInt. It only performs this 'bootstrapping' step once. Since calling Math.max doesn't rely on anything other than the two numbers that get passed in, it can cache that implementation and use it the next time you wind up on this code path.

Pre Java 8, this would have been written as:
public MyMathInteface {
OptionalInt max(Integer a, Integer b);
}
public static final MyMathInterface reducing = new MyMathInterface() {
#Override
public OptionalInt max(Integer a, Integer b) {
return OptionalInt.of(Math.max(a, b));
}
};
#Override
public final OptionalInt max() {
return reduce(reducing);
}
Then reduce would be defined as:
public static OptionalInt reduce(MyMathInteface toReduce) {
return toReduce.max(someValueA, someValueB);
}
So to answer your question, no arguments are passed to Math::max, because those values are retrieved by the reduce function. They could be constants or they could be retrieved from some other place.
In any case, the use of the max method in this way is called a method reference, that is where you do SomeObject::method. That :: operator creates a method reference. It returns a function, but does not call the function. The user (reduce) is responsible for calling the function.

int value converted to Integer Wrapper class object with System.out.println?

This more of a clarity than a doubt. In the following :
int a = 10;
System.out.println(a);
What I conclude is that variable 'a' of the primitive type int is first converted to the Integer Wrapper class object and then toString method is invoked for that Integer object which returns the integer value in String form to the println method. Is my understanding correct? If not what is the correct explanation?

You're wrong. It can handle int, see the docs*:
public void println(int x)
* Always :)

If you check the type of System.out, you'll see it's a PrintStream. Read the docs.
Quote:
public void println(int x)
Prints an integer and then terminate the line. This method behaves
as though it invokes print(int) and then println().
Parameters:
x - The int to be printed.
So, no, no conversion to Integer is done. The int matches the signature of the above method exactly, so that method is called. What happens internally is unspecified, but it probably calls Integer.toString() directly, with out a conversion to Integer.

No i think it's not the way you explained.
System.out is a static reference of PrintStream class (present in java.io package) which has methods to print primitives directly!!!

To be precise, it actually uses the String.valueOf(int) method.
This is the source code, from PrintStream
/**
* Prints the string representation of the int {#code i} followed by a newline.
*/
public void println(int i) {
println(String.valueOf(i));
}

Wrappers in Java

public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Integer obj1 = Integer.valueOf(12);
Integer obj2 = Integer.valueOf("12");
System.out.println(obj1.intValue() + " " + obj2.intValue());
Integer obj3 = Integer.valueOf("1010", 2);
Integer obj4 = Integer.valueOf(1010, 2);//Compile time error.
}
}
//As valueOf() method takes both String and the repective type as argument, but then why
does last statement shows Compile time error where I am trying to use valueOf() method with radix.

Because there is no such overload. Read the documentation.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Integer.html

Albeit a good question,I don't know why your question was downvoted,it might be so because your comment was not seen by most of them!
The first part is indeed correct as answered by Jeroen Vannevel,there is no such overloaded version of Integer.valueOf() available in java-library!
The java.lang.Integer.valueOf(String s, int radix) method returns an Integer object holding the value extracted from the specified String s when parsed with the radix given by the second argument radix. So,here String is parsed into Integer object!!!
On the other hand,you are talking about Integer.valueOf(1010, 2). The number 1010 is already an Integer and so it can't be parsed again back to Integer! Also,if you want BinaryString---simply use java.lang.Integer.toBinaryString(). For your satisfaction,if you are still thinking of parsing,then proceed below :-
The solution to end your doubt is
how will you convert Integer.valueOf(1010,16) again into Integer
object???? It'll be containing String(hexadecimal representation of 3F2---see F here)!!!
I hope you have got the reason!!!
Hence,this was not provided in the java-library.

Convert Integer, Double to String in Java

Which of the following ways is better to convert Integer, Double to String in Java.
String.valueOf(doubleVal)
doubleVal + ""
doubleVal.toString()
Thanks.

doubleVal + "" is most likely the worst since it has to do a concatanation with an empty string. However, the other two are equivalent. The source code from OpenJDK:
// java.lang.String
public static String valueOf(double d) {
return Double.toString(d);
}
// java.lang.Double
public static String toString(double d) {
return new FloatingDecimal(d).toJavaFormatString();
}

I don't think there's a performance difference. Go for the most readable!
The first one is exactly equivalent to doublevar.toString() (check the javadoc). The second one is more suited for concatenating longer strings.
If you need to format the way your number is represented as a String, you anyway need to look into other classes

The first and the third are good, the second is bad.
The reason that the second is bad is because the code doesn't show what you want to do. The code says that you want to concatentate the value with an empty string, when you actually want only the conversion that happens before the concatenation.

I prefer to use Integer.toString(int), when you use String.valueOf(int), it internally calls to Integer.toString(int) (same with long, float and double). But for readability, it would be better to use String.valueOf()

There are slight semantic differences depending on whether you're using the primitive double type, or its object wrapper Double.
Anything that will work for a primitive double will also work for the object wrapped Double, but the opposite will not work. (That is, a primitive double will not be accepted if the parameter is of type Double.)
Also, the Double type's value may be null, but the primitive double type cannot.
Beyond that, there isn't much difference at all. For the code snippets you've provided, there isn't any worth really talking about.

i) String.valueOf(int i)
ii) Integer.toString(int i)
After looking the implementation of these methods I saw that the first one is calling the second one. As a consequence all my calls to String.valueOf(int i) involve one more call than directly calling Integer.toString(int i)
Just two different ways of doing the same thing

In String type we have several method valueOf
static String valueOf(boolean b)
static String valueOf(char c)
static String valueOf(char[] data)
static String valueOf(char[] data, int offset, int count)
static String valueOf(double d)
static String valueOf(float f)
static String valueOf(int i)
static String valueOf(long l)
static String valueOf(Object obj)
As we can see those method are capable to resolve all kind of numbers
every implementation of specific method like you have presented: So for double
Double.toString(dobule d)
and so on
In my opinion this is not some historical thing, but is more useful for developer to use the method valueOf from String class than from proper type, because is less changes to make when we want to change the type that we operate on.
Sample 1:
public String doStaff(int num) {
//Do something with num
return String.valueOf(num);
}
Sample2:
public String doStaff(int num) {
//Do somenthing with num
return Integer.toString(num);
}
As we see in sample 2 we have to do two changes, in contrary to sample one.
My conclusion is that using the valueOf method from String class is more flexible and that why is available there.

From the official source:
public static String valueOf(double d) {
return Double.toString(d);
}
So the first and the third are not really different, as long as doubleVal is double and not Double. This is because in the case of a Double, you will call
public static String valueOf(Object obj) {
return (obj == null) ? "null" : obj.toString();
}
The second is certainly worse because of the need to concatenate.
CONCLUSION:
Following the question, I must assume that the most efficient way is to call the toString() method.

Java string.valueOf() method converts different types of value such as long,int,double,float into String.
Double double_val=45.9;
String string_conversion=String.valueOf(double_val);

Output Parameters in Java

With a third party API I observed the following.
Instead of using,
public static string getString(){
return "Hello World";
}
it uses something like
public static void getString(String output){
}
and I am getting the "output" string assigned.
I am curious about the reason of implementing such functionality. What are the advantages of using such output parameters?

Something isn't right in your example.
class Foo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String x = "foo";
getString(x);
System.out.println(x);
}
public static void getString(String output){
output = "Hello World"
}
}
In the above program, the string "foo" will be output, not "Hello World".
Some types are mutable, in which case you can modify an object passed into a function. For immutable types (such as String), you would have to build some sort of wrapper class that you can pass around instead:
class Holder<T> {
public Holder(T value) {
this.value = value;
}
public T value;
}
Then you can instead pass around the holder:
public static void main(String[] args) {
String x = "foo";
Holder<String> h = new Holder(x);
getString(h);
System.out.println(h.value);
}
public static void getString(Holder<String> output){
output.value = "Hello World"
}

That example is wrong, Java does not have output parameters.
One thing you could do to emulate this behaviour is:
public void doSomething(String[] output) {
output[0] = "Hello World!";
}
But IMHO this sucks on multiple levels. :)
If you want a method to return something, make it return it. If you need to return multiple objects, create a container class to put these objects into and return that.

I disagree with Jasper: "In my opinion, this is a really ugly and bad way to return more than one result".
In .NET there is a interesting construct that utilize the output parameters:
bool IDictionary.TryGet(key, out value);
I find it very usefull and elegant. And it is the most convenient way to aks if an item is in collection and return it at the same time. With it you may write:
object obj;
if (myList.TryGet(theKey, out obj))
{
... work with the obj;
}
I constantly scold my developers if I see old-style code like:
if (myList.Contains(theKey))
{
obj = myList.Get(theKey);
}
You see, it cuts the performance in half. In Java there is no way to differentiate null value of an existing item from non-existance of an item in a Map in one call. Sometimes this is necessary.

This functionality has one big disadvantage - it doesn't work. Function parameters are local to function and assigning to them doesn't have any impact outside the function.
On the other hand
void getString(StringBuilder builder) {
builder.delete(0, builder.length());
builder.append("hello world");
}
will work, but I see no advantages of doing this (except when you need to return more than one value).

Sometimes this mechanism can avoid creation of a new object.
Example:
If an appropriate object exists anyhow, it is faster to pass it to the method and get some field changed.
This is more efficient than creating a new object inside the called method, and returning and assigning its reference (producing garbage that needs to be collected sometime).

String are immutable, you cannot use Java's pseudo output parameters with immutable objects.
Also, the scope of output is limited to the getString method. If you change the output variable, the caller won't see a thing.
What you can do, however, is change the state of the parameter. Consider the following example:
void handle(Request r) {
doStuff(r.getContent());
r.changeState("foobar");
r.setHandled();
}
If you have a manager calling multiple handles with a single Request, you can change the state of the Request to allow further processing (by other handlers) on a modified content. The manager could also decide to stop processing.
Advantages:
You don't need to return a special object containing the new content and whether the processing should stop. That object would only be used once and creating the object waste memory and processing power.
You don't have to create another Request object and let the garbage collector get rid of the now obsolete old reference.
In some cases, you can't create a new object. For example, because that object was created using a factory, and you don't have access to it, or because the object had listeners and you don't know how to tell the objects that were listening to the old Request that they should instead listen to the new Request.

Actually, it is impossible to have out parameters in java but you can make a work around making the method take on a de-reference for the immutable String and primitives by either writing a generic class where the immutable is the generic with the value and setter and getter or by using an array where element 0 (1 in length) is the value provided it is instantiate first because there are situations where you need to return more than one value where having to write a class just to return them where the class is only used there is just a waste of text and not really re-usable.
Now being a C/C++ and also .Net (mono or MS), it urges me that java does not support at least a de-reference for primitives; so, I resort to the array instead.
Here is an example. Let's say you need to create a function (method) to check whether the index is valid in the array but you also want to return the remainding length after the index is validated. Let's call it in c as 'bool validate_index(int index, int arr_len, int&rem)'. A way to do this in java would be 'Boolean validate_index(int index, int arr_len, int[] rem1)'. rem1 just means the array hold 1 element.
public static Boolean validate_index(int index, int arr_len, int[] rem1)
{
if (index < 0 || arr_len <= 0) return false;
Boolean retVal = (index >= 0 && index < arr_len);
if (retVal && rem1 != null) rem1[0] = (arr_len - (index + 1));
return retVal;
}
Now if we use this we can get both the Boolean return and the remainder.
public static void main(String[] args)
{
int[] ints = int[]{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6};
int[] aRem = int[]{-1};
//because we can only scapegoat the de-ref we need to instantiate it first.
Boolean result = validate_index(3, ints.length, aRem);
System.out.println("Validation = " + result.toString());
System.out.println("Remainding elements equals " + aRem[0].toString());
}
puts: Validation = True
puts: Remainding elements equals 2
Array elements always either point to the object on the stack or the address of the object on the heap. So using it as a de-references is absolutely possible even for arrays by making it a double array instantiating it as myArrayPointer = new Class[1][] then passing it in because sometimes you don't know what the length of the array will until the call going through an algorithm like 'Boolean tryToGetArray(SomeObject o, T[][] ppArray)' which would be the same as in c/c++ as 'template bool tryToGetArray (SomeObject* p, T** ppArray)' or C# 'bool tryToGetArray(SomeObject o, ref T[] array)'.
It works and it works well as long as the [][] or [] is instantiate in memory first with at least one element.

in my opinion, this is useful when you have more than one result in a function.