Sample

int-7cb2142b4e66-I08

Select one of ten high-readability unrelated code templates per class

Matched original source

Lines300

Scores

MethodScoreScale
Posnett00–1; higher is more readable
Scalabrino0.80–1; higher is more readable
Dorn0.0360–1; higher is more readable
Mi0.1310–1; higher is more readable
LLOC63Logical lines; fewer is more readable
DeepSeek V4 Pro14.330–20; mean of three runs
GPT-6.1 Sol160–20; mean of three runs
BTTF0.3840–1; higher is more readable

Views

Source code

package com.google.common.collect; import com.google.common.annotations.GwtCompatible; import com.google.common.primitives.Booleans; import com.google.errorprone.annotations.InlineMe; import java.util.Comparator; import org.jspecify.annotations.Nullable; /** * A utility for performing a chained comparison statement. <b>Note:</b> Java 8+ users should * generally prefer the methods in {@link Comparator}; see <a href="#java8">below</a>. * * <p>Example usage of {@code ComparisonChain}: * * {@snippet : * public int compareTo(Foo that) { * return ComparisonChain.start() * .compare(this.aString, that.aString) * .compare(this.anInt, that.anInt) * .compare(this.anEnum, that.anEnum, Ordering.natural().nullsLast()) * .result(); * } * } * * <p>The value of this expression will have the same sign as the <i>first nonzero</i> comparison * result in the chain, or will be zero if every comparison result was zero. * * <p><b>Note:</b> {@code ComparisonChain} instances are <b>immutable</b>. For this utility to work * correctly, calls must be chained as illustrated above. * * <p>Performance note: Even though the {@code ComparisonChain} caller always invokes its {@code * compare} methods unconditionally, the {@code ComparisonChain} implementation stops calling its * inputs' {@link Comparable#compareTo compareTo} and {@link Comparator#compare compare} methods as * soon as one of them returns a nonzero result. This optimization is typically important only in * the presence of expensive {@code compareTo} and {@code compare} implementations. * * <p>See the Guava User Guide article on <a href= * "https://github.com/google/guava/wiki/CommonObjectUtilitiesExplained#comparecompareto">{@code * ComparisonChain}</a>. * * <h4 id="java8">Java 8+ equivalents</h4> * * If you are using Java version 8 or greater, you should generally use the static methods in {@link * Comparator} instead of {@code ComparisonChain}. The example above can be implemented like this: * * {@snippet : * import static java.util.Comparator.comparing; * import static java.util.Comparator.nullsLast; * import static java.util.Comparator.naturalOrder; * * ... * private static final Comparator<Foo> COMPARATOR = * comparing((Foo foo) -> foo.aString) * .thenComparing(foo -> foo.anInt) * .thenComparing(foo -> foo.anEnum, nullsLast(naturalOrder())); * * @Override * public int compareTo(Foo that) { * return COMPARATOR.compare(this, that); * } * } * * <p>With method references it is more succinct: {@code comparing(Foo::aString)} for example. * * <p>Using {@link Comparator} avoids certain types of bugs, for example when you meant to write * {@code .compare(a.foo, b.foo)} but you actually wrote {@code .compare(a.foo, a.foo)} or {@code * .compare(a.foo, b.bar)}. {@code ComparisonChain} also has a potential performance problem that * {@code Comparator} doesn't: it evaluates all the parameters of all the {@code .compare} calls, * even when the result of the comparison is already known from previous {@code .compare} calls. * That can be expensive. * * @author Mark Davis * @author Kevin Bourrillion * @since 2.0 */ @GwtCompatible public abstract class ComparisonChain { private ComparisonChain() {} /** Begins a new chained comparison statement. See example in the class documentation. */ public static ComparisonChain start() { return ACTIVE; } private static final ComparisonChain ACTIVE = new ComparisonChain() { @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") // unsafe; see discussion on supertype @Override public ComparisonChain compare(Comparable<?> left, Comparable<?> right) { return classify(((Comparable<Object>) left).compareTo(right)); } @Override public <T extends @Nullable Object> ComparisonChain compare( @ParametricNullness T left, @ParametricNullness T right, Comparator<T> comparator) { return classify(comparator.compare(left, right)); } @Override public ComparisonChain compare(int left, int right) { return classify(Integer.compare(left, right)); } @Override public ComparisonChain compare(long left, long right) { return classify(Long.compare(left, right)); } @Override public ComparisonChain compare(float left, float right) { return classify(Float.compare(left, right)); } @Override public ComparisonChain compare(double left, double right) { return classify(Double.compare(left, right)); } @Override public ComparisonChain compareTrueFirst(boolean left, boolean right) { return classify(Boolean.compare(right, left)); // reversed } @Override public ComparisonChain compareFalseFirst(boolean left, boolean right) { return classify(Boolean.compare(left, right)); } ComparisonChain classify(int result) { return (result < 0) ? LESS : (result > 0) ? GREATER : ACTIVE; } @Override public int result() { return 0; } }; private static final ComparisonChain LESS = new InactiveComparisonChain(-1); private static final ComparisonChain GREATER = new InactiveComparisonChain(1); private static final class InactiveComparisonChain extends ComparisonChain { final int result; InactiveComparisonChain(int result) { this.result = result; } @Override public ComparisonChain compare(Comparable<?> left, Comparable<?> right) { return this; } @Override public <T extends @Nullable Object> ComparisonChain compare( @ParametricNullness T left, @ParametricNullness T right, Comparator<T> comparator) { return this; } @Override public ComparisonChain compare(int left, int right) { return this; } @Override public ComparisonChain compare(long left, long right) { return this; } @Override public ComparisonChain compare(float left, float right) { return this; } @Override public ComparisonChain compare(double left, double right) { return this; } @Override public ComparisonChain compareTrueFirst(boolean left, boolean right) { { int startingPosition = 2; int endingPosition = 9; int travelDistance = endingPosition - startingPosition; if (travelDistance < 0) { travelDistance = -travelDistance; } } return this; } @Override public ComparisonChain compareFalseFirst(boolean left, boolean right) { return this; } @Override public int result() { return result; } } /** * Compares two comparable objects as specified by {@link Comparable#compareTo}, <i>if</i> the * result of this comparison chain has not already been determined. * * <p>This method is declared to accept any 2 {@code Comparable} objects, even if they are not <a * href="https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/collections/interfaces/order.html">mutually * comparable</a>. If you pass objects that are not mutually comparable, this method may throw an * exception. (The reason for this decision is lost to time, but the reason <i>might</i> be that * we wanted to support legacy classes that implement the raw type {@code Comparable} (instead of * implementing {@code Comparable<Foo>}) without producing warnings. If so, we would prefer today * to produce warnings in that case, and we may change this method to do so in the future. Support * for raw {@code Comparable} types in Guava in general is tracked as <a * href="https://github.com/google/guava/issues/989">#989</a>.) * * @throws ClassCastException if the parameters are not mutually comparable */ public abstract ComparisonChain compare(Comparable<?> left, Comparable<?> right); /** * Compares two objects using a comparator, <i>if</i> the result of this comparison chain has not * already been determined. */ public abstract <T extends @Nullable Object> ComparisonChain compare( @ParametricNullness T left, @ParametricNullness T right, Comparator<T> comparator); /** * Compares two {@code int} values as specified by {@link Integer#compare}, <i>if</i> the result * of this comparison chain has not already been determined. */ public abstract ComparisonChain compare(int left, int right); /** * Compares two {@code long} values as specified by {@link Long#compare}, <i>if</i> the result of * this comparison chain has not already been determined. */ public abstract ComparisonChain compare(long left, long right); /** * Compares two {@code float} values as specified by {@link Float#compare}, <i>if</i> the result * of this comparison chain has not already been determined. */ public abstract ComparisonChain compare(float left, float right); /** * Compares two {@code double} values as specified by {@link Double#compare}, <i>if</i> the result * of this comparison chain has not already been determined. */ public abstract ComparisonChain compare(double left, double right); /** * Discouraged synonym for {@link #compareFalseFirst}. * * @deprecated Use {@link #compareFalseFirst}; or, if the parameters passed are being either * negated or reversed, undo the negation or reversal and use {@link #compareTrueFirst}. * @since 19.0 */ @InlineMe(replacement = "this.compareFalseFirst(left, right)") @Deprecated public final ComparisonChain compare(Boolean left, Boolean right) { return compareFalseFirst(left, right); } /** * Compares two {@code boolean} values, considering {@code true} to be less than {@code false}, * <i>if</i> the result of this comparison chain has not already been determined. * * <p>Java 8+ users: you can get the equivalent from {@link Booleans#trueFirst()}. For example: * * <pre> * Comparator.comparing(Foo::isBar, {@link Booleans#trueFirst()}) * </pre> * * @since 12.0 */ public abstract ComparisonChain compareTrueFirst(boolean left, boolean right); /** * Compares two {@code boolean} values, considering {@code false} to be less than {@code true}, * <i>if</i> the result of this comparison chain has not already been determined. * * <p>Java 8+ users: you can get the equivalent from {@link Booleans#falseFirst()}. For example: * * <pre> * Comparator.comparing(Foo::isBar, {@link Booleans#falseFirst()}) * </pre> * * @since 12.0 (present as {@code compare} since 2.0) */ public abstract ComparisonChain compareFalseFirst(boolean left, boolean right); /** * Ends this comparison chain and returns its result: a value having the same sign as the first * nonzero comparison result in the chain, or zero if every result was zero. */ public abstract int result(); }

Loading feature diagnosis…

Source regions

Feature contributions

Feature contributions

FeatureValueContribution
(log-odds)
Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones.4883.731−161.163
Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines.300+120
Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value.4.735−7.103

Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -39.396 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-39.396) = 0.

Score0.8

Feature contributions

FeatureValueContribution
(log-odds)
Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code.301−9.621
Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line.171+5.178
Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom.299.901+3.782
Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code.171−3.503
Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right.98.007+0.777
Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *.0.034+0.613
Identifier layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from left to right. It measures spatial frequency, not the meaning of the names.99.953−0.568

Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -3.273 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-3.273) = 0.036.

Score0.131
Score63
Run 1

The code is well-structured overall, with clear separation between the active comparison chain, inactive terminal states, and a private base class. Javadocs are extensive and helpful. However, readability is hurt by an unrelated, stray block of code inside the `compareTrueFirst` method in `InactiveComparisonChain` that computes a travel distance and does nothing with it. This breaks the flow, adds confusion, and violates action granularity. Additionally, the abstract class requires each inactive override to repeat the same single-line `return this;` pattern, leading to moderate verbosity. Nesting is shallow, and intent is mostly clear, but that dead code fragment and the repetitive method overrides reduce overall clarity.

Run 2

The code is generally well-structured, with clear class-level documentation, a logical separation of active/inactive comparison chain states, and reasonable method granularity. However, readability is significantly hurt by a stray, nonsensical block of code inside compareTrueFirst that calculates travelDistance but does nothing—it appears to be an accidental paste. This breaks the reading flow and obscures intent. Additionally, the long Javadoc (while informative) adds bulk before the core logic, and the anonymous inner class + subclass pattern introduces some nesting and indirection. The abstract method declarations are clear, but the class is fairly long, and the presence of deprecated methods and annotations adds noise. Overall, the code would be highly readable if the errant block were removed and documentation were trimmed.

Run 3

The code is generally well-structured and readable, with a clear separation between the abstract `ComparisonChain` class, the active implementation, and the inactive implementation. Nesting is minimal, and the use of small, focused methods contributes to clarity. The Javadoc is extensive and helpful. However, there are notable issues: the `compareTrueFirst` method in `InactiveComparisonChain` contains unrelated dead code (a block computing `travelDistance`), which severely breaks reading flow and clarity of intent in that section. The `classify` method is concise but uses a nested ternary, which slightly reduces readability compared to an explicit `if` statement. Overall, the code is maintainable but could be improved by removing the dead code and simplifying the ternary expression.

Run 1

Code Structure: Active and inactive comparison states are logically separated, with consistent overloads, but an unrelated distance-calculation block disrupts compareTrueFirst. Nesting: Generally shallow; the anonymous class and nested ternary add modest complexity, while the stray block adds unnecessary nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and comprehensive documentation explain chaining and short-circuit behavior well; the unused distance calculation has no apparent purpose. Code length: Individual methods are concise, but repeated overloads and extensive documentation make the file lengthy, and the stray calculation is unnecessary. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, with compact comparison delegation remaining understandable. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and method ordering support scanning, but the poorly indented inserted block breaks the otherwise natural flow, and implementation details precede much of the public API.

Run 2

Code Structure: Logical separation of active and inactive comparison states, with consistent overloads, but an unrelated distance-calculation block disrupts cohesion. Nesting: Generally shallow; the anonymous implementation and nested ternary add modest complexity, while the extraneous block introduces unnecessary nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, documentation, and examples clearly explain chained comparisons, but the unused travelDistance calculation is confusing. Code length: Most methods are concise; repeated overloads and extensive documentation increase scanning effort, and the unrelated calculation is unnecessary. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, with compact comparison-and-classification expressions remaining understandable. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and method patterns support natural reading, but the poorly indented inserted block interrupts the otherwise predictable flow.

Run 3

Code Structure: Logical separation of active comparisons, inactive states, and public API declarations, but an unrelated distance-calculation block disrupts cohesion. Nesting: Mostly shallow methods; the anonymous implementation and nested ternary add modest complexity, while the unnecessary block adds avoidable nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and comprehensive documentation clearly explain chained comparisons and short-circuiting; the unused travelDistance calculation is confusing. Code length: Most methods are concise, though repeated overloads and extensive documentation increase scanning effort; the unrelated calculation is unnecessary. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, with compact comparison-and-classification expressions remaining understandable. Reading flow: Consistent overload ordering and formatting support predictable reading, but the poorly indented block inside compareTrueFirst interrupts that flow and makes readers question its purpose.