Sample

int-7a520feee2d7-I11

Split eligible integer literals into pairs of short-named intermediate variables

Matched original source

Lines297

Scores

MethodScoreScale
Posnett00–1; higher is more readable
Scalabrino0.8150–1; higher is more readable
Dorn0.0370–1; higher is more readable
Mi0.1310–1; higher is more readable
LLOC64Logical lines; fewer is more readable
DeepSeek V4 Pro16.670–20; mean of three runs
GPT-6.1 Sol160–20; mean of three runs
BTTF0.4360–1; 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) { final int a = 1; final int b = -1; final int c = 1; final int d = -1; return (result < (a + b)) ? LESS : (result > (c + d)) ? GREATER : ACTIVE; } @Override public int result() { final int e = 1; final int f = -1; return (e + f); } }; 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) { 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.5005.185−165.171
Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines.297+118.8
Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value.4.724−7.086

Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -44.587 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-44.587) = 0.

Score0.815

Feature contributions

FeatureValueContribution
(log-odds)
Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code.298−9.515
Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line.168+5.074
Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom.296.832+3.739
Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code.168−3.434
Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right.97.98+0.776
Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *.0.035+0.606
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 = -3.252 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-3.252) = 0.037.

Score0.131
Score64
Run 1

This is highly readable production-quality code. Structure is clear: class docs, static factories, ACTIVE/Inactive implementations, then abstract API declarations. Nesting is minimal; anonymous ACTIVE and Inactive subclasses are small and focused. Intent is unambiguous—a fluent comparison chain that short-circuits. The code is concise, though the extensive Javadoc increases length; the executable portion remains tight. Action granularity is excellent, one logical operation per line. Reading flow is natural: constructor, start(), implementations, then abstract methods. Minor issues: obscure variable names (a,b,c,d,e,f) make `classify` and `result` slightly cryptic compared to the surrounding clarity; `classify` could use named constants like `LESS_RESULT/GREATER_RESULT`. The raw-type cast and suppression are justified with comments. Overloaded compare methods produce repetition, but this is inherent to the API design and aids type safety. Overall, exceptional readability for a utility class.

Run 2

The code is generally well-structured and follows clear patterns, but some oddities reduce readability. The class documentation is extensive and helpful, and the abstract method declarations are cleanly separated. However, the anonymous ACTIVE implementation contains confusing 'classify' and 'result' methods with meaningless variable names (a, b, c, d, e, f) that obscure intent—these could simply use explicit constants or direct comparisons. The use of arithmetic (a+b, c+d) instead of literal 0 is unnecessarily obfuscated. The InactiveComparisonChain class is straightforward and readable. Nesting is minimal, and method granularity is mostly one action per line. Overall flow is logical, but the deliberate obscurity in the active chain's core methods detracts from clarity.

Run 3

The code is well-structured with clear separation of concerns: an abstract base class defining the API, an ACTIVE implementation performing comparisons, and an InactiveComparisonChain short-circuiting after a result is determined. Documentation is thorough but verbose, somewhat impacting readability. Nesting is minimal, and intent is generally clear. However, the anonymous ACTIVE class contains obfuscated logic with meaningless variable names (a, b, c, d, e, f) and redundant expressions like `(a + b)` and `(e + f)`, reducing clarity. The deep inheritance hierarchy (ComparisonChain -> anonymous class -> InactiveComparisonChain) adds complexity. Action granularity is mostly good, but conditional logic in `classify` is compressed. Reading flow is natural at a high level but interrupted by excessive Javadoc and unclear numeric constants. Overall, readable but with notable clarity issues in the comparison logic.

Run 1

Code Structure: Active and inactive chain implementations are logically separated, with consistent overloads and a clear public API. Nesting: Control flow is shallow, although the anonymous class and nested ternary add some complexity. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and thorough documentation explain comparison behavior well; however, meaningless variables a–f and arithmetic expressions hiding zero obscure otherwise simple logic. Code length: Most methods are concise, but extensive documentation, repeated overloads, and unnecessary temporary constants increase reading effort. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line; the classification ternary compresses multiple decisions into one expression. Reading flow: Formatting and method grouping are consistent, but placing implementation details before most API declarations and the artificial arithmetic interrupt an otherwise natural flow.

Run 2

Code Structure: Logically separates active comparisons, inactive states, and the public API, though the anonymous implementation adds some complexity. Nesting: Generally shallow; the nested ternary in classify is the main exception. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and thorough documentation explain chaining and short-circuit behavior, but meaningless variables a–f and arithmetic expressions obscure simple zero comparisons and returns. Code length: Individual methods are concise, while repeated overloads and extensive documentation make the file lengthy, mostly for legitimate API coverage. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line; classify compresses multiple decisions into one expression. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and parallel method implementations aid scanning, but placing implementation details before abstract API declarations requires some navigation. Overall, readable and well documented, with avoidable obfuscation in two core methods.

Run 3

Code Structure: Logical separation of active and inactive comparison states, with a consistent public API. Nesting: Generally shallow; the anonymous implementation and nested class add modest complexity, while the nested ternary slightly impairs readability. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, documentation, and examples explain the comparison chain well, but meaningless variables a–f and arithmetic expressions disguising zero obscure otherwise simple logic. Code length: Extensive documentation and repeated overloads make the file long, though most repetition supports the API; the extra constants are unnecessary. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, and methods remain small and focused. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and parallel implementations support predictable reading, but implementation details preceding abstract API declarations require some navigation, and the obfuscated classify/result methods interrupt the flow.