![]() ![]() Otherwise you can just go with your extension function or whatever makes you feel happy. I am not a performance expert, but for most of the use cases I don't really see a reasonable benefit of reusing an existing list instead of just simply cloning it (if you really need to keep the elements for some reason) and speaking of performance itself, the JVM almost always does a good job anyway.Ĭonclusion: What I would suggest is to keep it on 2 lines if you really need it or design your code in a way so that you completely avoid the need for clear/addAll. I would suggest to look at some core functional programming principles which will get you rid of the clear/addAll concerns completely :-). If you use mutable lists a lot, which are being cleared and their elements are being copied between each other, again, it seem to me as an over-use of mutable state, which makes your code difficult to reason about. ![]() If you use this design pattern very often, it seems to me that there is something quite wrong in your overall design of your application/class and here I totally agree with the "I hope there's no such method" comment by you don't use it often, I think that leaving it on 2 lines of code makes it much more readable.Ĭlearing the "listOfChecklist" makes sense only if "newlist" gets cleared at some point too, otherwise you could just keep the reference like: "listOfChecklist = newlist" and boom! You're done. Senior Software Engineer / Developer (Java Kotlin AWS) London / WFH to £120kWould you like toSee this and similar jobs on LinkedIn. The primary difference between both these functions is that remove throws a NoSuchElementException if there are no elements available in the Queue to remove. ![]() If you really feel the need to merge these 2 operations into one line of code, it suggests you use this very often. Linked List Kotlin Queue remove and get element You can use either remove or poll functions to remove and return the element from the queue. My answer will be rather philosophical, so here are my thoughts: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |