With lastIndex, yes. Just don't have to [index] if you loop over indicies

Yeah, my example would actually read nicer that way

listView.forEachIndexed { i, item ->
  if (i == listView.lastIndex) return@forEachIndexed
  item.addDivider()
}

If you are doing a kind of aggregate, consider fold/reduce and checking first item instead of last

@kevinmost try fold ;) a bit cryptic though

@orangy hmm, how would you fold to achieve this?

Sorry,

reduce

items.reduce { last, current -> last.addDivider(); current }

ah, tricky. I probably wouldn't put this into any production code though. The intent doesn't seem very clear to me 😛

absolutely 🙂 I said, a bit cryptic 🙂

I can see it unclear too, for side-effects it's better to use

forEach

, because

reduce

is supposed to create something new. It is surprising to see

reduce

working for a side effects (while

forEach

is meant to do so).

Working for a while with side-effects free lang (Elm), where functions are always pure, every mutation seems odd and complicated though, heh…

If we're going to have

List.lastIndex

, I think

List.isLastIndex(i: Int): Boolean

would make sense too, since very often, that last index is tested for equality

I usually just use it for ranges, but I tend to avoid fencepost problems.

Hi guys, I am new to Kotlin. Hope this channel will help me ramp up quick. 👍

i don't think so. has too many "magic behind the scenes" 😄

Hi guys, I’m in the middle of migrate a spring project from java to kotlin.

I have a kotlin class defined as:

@User uploaded a file: Untitled

The java class (which is in the same package, but on the

java

source can’t see it

@User uploaded a file: Untitled

it’s open so it should be visible.

Neither idea or maven can’t see it generating a compile error

kotlin-maven-plugin compiles before the java one, so it should be there, I guess.

@dragas yes, why not, any of these four (no particular order): Rust, F#, Kotlin, C++

@crpr Yeah, that's what I worry about. Kotlin seems to "just work" as expected.

Any way to declare a

const val

with

null

value?

but why?

just use null,

const

is inlined

e. g.

const val uglyThing = null

, like

typealias

🙂

btw

const

can be only simple types and String

@vaskir has left the channel