In languages susceptible to null-pointer exceptions, this is useful because a proper object allows the client to call any of the available class members.Ĭonsider the example below, where we use a default of null. The reason this is true is because it adheres to the well-known Null-Object Pattern.īriefly, the pattern suggests a design where we use semantically meaningful types to represent our empty, default, or null values. While I do not know the design intent of the API, I definitely see a semantic reason for its inclusion.Īs already stated, emptyList() appears like a good candidate for a default parameter. Of course, if you create empty lists all of the time, this may add up, but it's difficult for me to see where this is applicable. You will be losing a few bytes of memory or wasting only a few clock cycles when instantiating via listOf(). In my opinion, the allocation of an empty list in JVM-based language is only marginally significant. Provides a good answer addressing the lower-level details of using a singleton empty list object, minimizing allocations.
0 kommentar(er)
