Dummy-proof the source?

[romoore]

Some of the code could be made "simpler" by not being so clever. An example:

if (key.isConnectable()) if (!communicator.onConnectable()) continue;

Could be rewritten for noobs as

if(key.isConnectable() && !communicator.onConnectable()){ 
  continue; 
}

This has 2 advantages:

• A single "if" which is still fail-fast
• Explicit block statements in case nooblets want to change the behavior but don't realize what will be executed and what won't.

[rf]

I used to do explicit blocks everywhere, but in particular when the if fits on a single line, it's pretty easy to tell what's going on. In practice, I don't see this causing errors very often. Maybe it would have if it weren't so often pointed to as one of the Most Common Errors Ever by Really Smart People. I also don't think idiot-proofing the source is a good excuse to waste 2 lines; in this case that portion of the code would end up being 12 lines rather than 4 lines. That's a significant difference.

Re && and short circuiting, yes, it can be a single if. But some people aren't aware that && is short circuited, which is why I like to split it into separate ifs. I think it makes it clearer, even if it doesn't particularly suit your tastes.

[eigenwhat]

You could meet halfway and do:

if (key.isConnectable() && !communicator.onConnectable()) { continue; }