Java中没有Pair<L,R>,有什么好理由吗?与这个c++构造等价的是什么?我宁愿避免重新实现我自己的。

似乎1.6提供了类似的东西(AbstractMap.SimpleEntry<K,V>),但这看起来相当复杂。


当前回答

@Andreas Krey的回答其实很好。任何Java给你带来困难的事情,你都不应该去做。

在我的经验中,Pair最常见的用途是一个方法的多个返回值和hashmap中的values(通常由字符串索引)。

在后一种情况下,我最近使用了一个数据结构,类似这样:

class SumHolder{MyObject trackedObject, double sum};

这是您的整个“Pair”类,与通用的“Pair”类的代码数量几乎相同,但具有描述性名称的优势。它可以在它使用的方法中定义,这将消除公共变量等典型问题。换句话说,对于这种用法,它绝对比一对更好(由于命名的成员),不会更差。

If you actually want a "Pair" for the key of a hashmap you are essentially creating a double-key index. I think this may be the one case where a "Pair" is significantly less code. It's not really easier because you could have eclipse generate equals/hash on your little data class, but it would be a good deal more code. Here a Pair would be a quick fix, but if you need a double-indexed hash who's to say you don't need an n-indexed hash? The data class solution will scale up, the Pair will not unless you nest them!

So the second case, returning from a method, is a bit harder. Your class needs more visibility (the caller needs to see it too). You can define it outside the method but inside the class exactly as above. At that point your method should be able to return a MyClass.SumHolder object. The caller gets to see the names of the returned objects, not just a "Pair". Note again that the "Default" security of package level is pretty good--it's restrictive enough that you shouldn't get yourself into too much trouble. Better than a "Pair" object anyway.

我能看到的另一种情况是使用一个公共api,为当前包之外的调用者提供返回值。为此,我只创建一个真正的对象——最好是不可变的。最终,调用者将共享此返回值,并且使其可变可能会出现问题。这是Pair对象更糟糕的另一种情况——大多数Pair不能被设置为不可变的。

所有这些情况的另一个优点是——java类扩展,我的sum类需要第二个sum和“Created”标记,当我完成时,我将不得不扔掉Pair并使用其他东西,但如果Pair有意义,我的4个值的类至少仍然有意义。

其他回答

public class Pair<K, V> {

    private final K element0;
    private final V element1;

    public static <K, V> Pair<K, V> createPair(K key, V value) {
        return new Pair<K, V>(key, value);
    }

    public Pair(K element0, V element1) {
        this.element0 = element0;
        this.element1 = element1;
    }

    public K getElement0() {
        return element0;
    }

    public V getElement1() {
        return element1;
    }

}

用法:

Pair<Integer, String> pair = Pair.createPair(1, "test");
pair.getElement0();
pair.getElement1();

不可变,只有一对!

这取决于你想用它来做什么。这样做的典型原因是在地图上迭代,为此你可以简单地这样做(Java 5+):

Map<String, Object> map = ... ; // just an example
for (Map.Entry<String, Object> entry : map.entrySet()) {
  System.out.printf("%s -> %s\n", entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());
}

我注意到所有的Pair实现都散布在这里,属性含义取决于两个值的顺序。当我想到一对时,我想到的是两件物品的组合,这两件物品的顺序不重要。下面是我对一个无序对的实现,使用hashCode和equals重写以确保集合中的期望行为。也可克隆。

/**
 * The class <code>Pair</code> models a container for two objects wherein the
 * object order is of no consequence for equality and hashing. An example of
 * using Pair would be as the return type for a method that needs to return two
 * related objects. Another good use is as entries in a Set or keys in a Map
 * when only the unordered combination of two objects is of interest.<p>
 * The term "object" as being a one of a Pair can be loosely interpreted. A
 * Pair may have one or two <code>null</code> entries as values. Both values
 * may also be the same object.<p>
 * Mind that the order of the type parameters T and U is of no importance. A
 * Pair&lt;T, U> can still return <code>true</code> for method <code>equals</code>
 * called with a Pair&lt;U, T> argument.<p>
 * Instances of this class are immutable, but the provided values might not be.
 * This means the consistency of equality checks and the hash code is only as
 * strong as that of the value types.<p>
 */
public class Pair<T, U> implements Cloneable {

    /**
     * One of the two values, for the declared type T.
     */
    private final T object1;
    /**
     * One of the two values, for the declared type U.
     */
    private final U object2;
    private final boolean object1Null;
    private final boolean object2Null;
    private final boolean dualNull;

    /**
     * Constructs a new <code>Pair&lt;T, U&gt;</code> with T object1 and U object2 as
     * its values. The order of the arguments is of no consequence. One or both of
     * the values may be <code>null</code> and both values may be the same object.
     *
     * @param object1 T to serve as one value.
     * @param object2 U to serve as the other value.
     */
    public Pair(T object1, U object2) {

        this.object1 = object1;
        this.object2 = object2;
        object1Null = object1 == null;
        object2Null = object2 == null;
        dualNull = object1Null && object2Null;

    }

    /**
     * Gets the value of this Pair provided as the first argument in the constructor.
     *
     * @return a value of this Pair.
     */
    public T getObject1() {

        return object1;

    }

    /**
     * Gets the value of this Pair provided as the second argument in the constructor.
     *
     * @return a value of this Pair.
     */
    public U getObject2() {

        return object2;

    }

    /**
     * Returns a shallow copy of this Pair. The returned Pair is a new instance
     * created with the same values as this Pair. The values themselves are not
     * cloned.
     *
     * @return a clone of this Pair.
     */
    @Override
    public Pair<T, U> clone() {

        return new Pair<T, U>(object1, object2);

    }

    /**
     * Indicates whether some other object is "equal" to this one.
     * This Pair is considered equal to the object if and only if
     * <ul>
     * <li>the Object argument is not null,
     * <li>the Object argument has a runtime type Pair or a subclass,
     * </ul>
     * AND
     * <ul>
     * <li>the Object argument refers to this pair
     * <li>OR this pair's values are both null and the other pair's values are both null
     * <li>OR this pair has one null value and the other pair has one null value and
     * the remaining non-null values of both pairs are equal
     * <li>OR both pairs have no null values and have value tuples &lt;v1, v2> of
     * this pair and &lt;o1, o2> of the other pair so that at least one of the
     * following statements is true:
     * <ul>
     * <li>v1 equals o1 and v2 equals o2
     * <li>v1 equals o2 and v2 equals o1
     * </ul>
     * </ul>
     * In any other case (such as when this pair has two null parts but the other
     * only one) this method returns false.<p>
     * The type parameters that were used for the other pair are of no importance.
     * A Pair&lt;T, U> can return <code>true</code> for equality testing with
     * a Pair&lt;T, V> even if V is neither a super- nor subtype of U, should
     * the the value equality checks be positive or the U and V type values
     * are both <code>null</code>. Type erasure for parameter types at compile
     * time means that type checks are delegated to calls of the <code>equals</code>
     * methods on the values themselves.
     *
     * @param obj the reference object with which to compare.
     * @return true if the object is a Pair equal to this one.
     */
    @Override
    public boolean equals(Object obj) {

        if(obj == null)
            return false;

        if(this == obj)
            return true;

        if(!(obj instanceof Pair<?, ?>))
            return false;

        final Pair<?, ?> otherPair = (Pair<?, ?>)obj;

        if(dualNull)
            return otherPair.dualNull;

        //After this we're sure at least one part in this is not null

        if(otherPair.dualNull)
            return false;

        //After this we're sure at least one part in obj is not null

        if(object1Null) {
            if(otherPair.object1Null) //Yes: this and other both have non-null part2
                return object2.equals(otherPair.object2);
            else if(otherPair.object2Null) //Yes: this has non-null part2, other has non-null part1
                return object2.equals(otherPair.object1);
            else //Remaining case: other has no non-null parts
                return false;
        } else if(object2Null) {
            if(otherPair.object2Null) //Yes: this and other both have non-null part1
                return object1.equals(otherPair.object1);
            else if(otherPair.object1Null) //Yes: this has non-null part1, other has non-null part2
                return object1.equals(otherPair.object2);
            else //Remaining case: other has no non-null parts
                return false;
        } else {
            //Transitive and symmetric requirements of equals will make sure
            //checking the following cases are sufficient
            if(object1.equals(otherPair.object1))
                return object2.equals(otherPair.object2);
            else if(object1.equals(otherPair.object2))
                return object2.equals(otherPair.object1);
            else
                return false;
        }

    }

    /**
     * Returns a hash code value for the pair. This is calculated as the sum
     * of the hash codes for the two values, wherein a value that is <code>null</code>
     * contributes 0 to the sum. This implementation adheres to the contract for
     * <code>hashCode()</code> as specified for <code>Object()</code>. The returned
     * value hash code consistently remain the same for multiple invocations
     * during an execution of a Java application, unless at least one of the pair
     * values has its hash code changed. That would imply information used for 
     * equals in the changed value(s) has also changed, which would carry that
     * change onto this class' <code>equals</code> implementation.
     *
     * @return a hash code for this Pair.
     */
    @Override
    public int hashCode() {

        int hashCode = object1Null ? 0 : object1.hashCode();
        hashCode += (object2Null ? 0 : object2.hashCode());
        return hashCode;

    }

}

这个实现已经经过了适当的单元测试,并且在Set和Map中的使用已经经过了尝试。

请注意,我并没有要求在公共领域发布这个。这是我为在应用程序中使用而编写的代码,因此如果您打算使用它,请避免直接复制,并在注释和名称上搞得一团糟。明白我的意思吗?

另一个简洁的lombok实现

import lombok.Value;

@Value(staticConstructor = "of")
public class Pair<F, S> {
    private final F first;
    private final S second;
}

Brian Goetz, Paul Sandoz和Stuart Marks在Devoxx'14的QA环节中解释了原因。

一旦值类型被引入,在标准库中使用泛型对类就会变成技术债。

请参见:Java SE 8是否有对或元组?