Comparable and Comparator

suggest change


[{“Name”:“Java SE 1.2”,“GroupName”:null},{“Name”:“Java SE 1.3”,“GroupName”:null},{“Name”:“Java SE 1.4”,“GroupName”:null},{“Name”:“Java SE 5”,“GroupName”:null},{“Name”:“Java SE 6”,“GroupName”:null},{“Name”:“Java SE 7”,“GroupName”:null},{“Name”:“Java SE 8”,“GroupName”:null},{“Name”:“Java SE 9 (Early Access)”,“GroupName”:null}]



When implementing a compareTo(..) method which depends upon a double, do not do the following:

public int comareTo(MyClass other) {
    return (int)(doubleField - other.doubleField); //THIS IS BAD

The truncation caused by the (int) cast will cause the method to sometimes incorrectly return 0 instead of a positive or negative number, and can thus lead to comparison and sorting bugs.

Instead, the simplest correct implementation is to use, as such:

public int comareTo(MyClass other) {
    return,other.doubleField); //THIS IS GOOD

A non-generic version of Comparable<T>, simply Comparable, has existed since Java 1.2. Other than for interfacing with legacy code, it’s always better to implement the generic version Comparable<T>, as it doesn’t require casting upon comparison.

It is very standard for a class to be comparable to itself, as in:

public class A implements Comparable<A>

While it is possible to break from this paradigm, be cautious when doing so.

A Comparator<T> can still be used on instances of a class if that class implements Comparable<T>. In this case, the Comparator’s logic will be used; the natural ordering specified by the Comparable implementation will be ignored.

Feedback about page:

Optional: your email if you want me to get back to you:

Table Of Contents