optimized approxEquals in GeoObject.java

[ttomczak3]

To make the code more concise and efficient, we can simplify the conditional expressions and combine multiple conditions into a single return statement using short-circuit evaluation.

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[gabrielforster]

damn it

[RickHPotter]

Best pull request so far. Appreciate the effort.

[hungtruong]

LGTM

[Quinn-Barber]

genius

[preland]

Impossible; an actual PR?

On this repo?

[0o120]

Groundbreaking. This could be the missing link.

[Claaas]

LGTM

[Conradyen]

LGTM

[peiwenxu]

better-algorithm

[hexaquarks]

Groundbreaking

[jaidTw]

LGTM

[shailrshah]

Can reduce the verbosity further.

if (a == null && b == null) {
    return true;
}

return a != null && b != null &&
    a.accuracy == b.accuracy &&
    Math.abs(a.latitude - b.latitude) <= COORDS_EQUALITY_THRESHOLD &&
    Math.abs(a.longitude - b.longitude) <= COORDS_EQUALITY_THRESHOLD &&
    Double.compare(a.radius, b.radius) == 0 && 
    a.source == b.source;

I feel like this is more readable because now we exactly know all the conditions needed for non-null values of a and b to be equal in one concise statement.

[gabrielforster]

I think that just the last if/return should be reduced, because its the last one. I dont know. I think that the others are kinda "ok" to be like that.

[ttomczak3]

Thank you, it's definitely more maintainable.

[davidawad]

this would be the least lines and most maintainable.

return a!=null&&b!=null&&a.accuracy==b.accuracy&&Math.abs(a.latitude-b.latitude)<=COORDS_EQUALITY_THRESHOLD&&Math.abs(a.longitude-b.longitude)<=COORDS_EQUALITY_THRESHOLD&&a.radius==b.radius&&a.source==b.source;

[ttomczak3]

this would be the least lines and most maintainable.

return a!=null&&b!=null&&a.accuracy==b.accuracy&&Math.abs(a.latitude-b.latitude)<=COORDS_EQUALITY_THRESHOLD&&Math.abs(a.longitude-b.longitude)<=COORDS_EQUALITY_THRESHOLD&&a.radius==b.radius&&a.source==b.source;

I noticed that the Double.compare() method was removed. Can you explain the reason for this? It seems to be a more accurate way to compare two double values.

[shailrshah]

this would be the least lines and most maintainable.

return a!=null&&b!=null&&a.accuracy==b.accuracy&&Math.abs(a.latitude-b.latitude)<=COORDS_EQUALITY_THRESHOLD&&Math.abs(a.longitude-b.longitude)<=COORDS_EQUALITY_THRESHOLD&&a.radius==b.radius&&a.source==b.source;

I noticed that the Double.compare() method was removed. Can you explain the reason for this? It seems to be a more accurate way to compare two double values.

I would stick with the compare() method. Double values can have rounding inaccuracies due to their representation in the computer's limited memory space of (usually) 64 bits.

https://www.baeldung.com/java-comparing-doubles

[shailrshah]

LGTM, thanks for the quick turnaround!

[ttomczak3]

this would be the least lines and most maintainable.

return a!=null&&b!=null&&a.accuracy==b.accuracy&&Math.abs(a.latitude-b.latitude)<=COORDS_EQUALITY_THRESHOLD&&Math.abs(a.longitude-b.longitude)<=COORDS_EQUALITY_THRESHOLD&&a.radius==b.radius&&a.source==b.source;

I noticed that the Double.compare() method was removed. Can you explain the reason for this? It seems to be a more accurate way to compare two double values.

I would stick with the compare() method. Double values can have rounding inaccuracies due to their representation in the computer's limited memory space of (usually) 64 bits.

https://www.baeldung.com/java-comparing-doubles

Exactly!