How can `filter {}.isEmpty()` be simplified? IDE i...

# getting-started

[matt tighe]

How can filter {}.isEmpty() be simplified? IDE is complaining that it can be

[Shawn]

use .any {}

[Shawn]

all you care about is if you can find any element in your collection that matches that predicate, right?

[Ruckus]

I think in this case it would be .none {}

[Shawn]

none is also good if you need the opposite

[matt tighe]

Actually, all is what I want for this specific case, but thanks for getting me thinking along the right tracks!

[pt]

the IDE can often suggest a solution in cases like this. on OSX you can press option+enter, not sure about windows but the shortcut should show up as “show intention actions”

[Hullaballoonatic]

on windows it's alt+enter by default

[matt tighe]

Yeah, it couldn't for this one for whatever reason

[Shawn]

I get a useful-looking popover on my machine prompting me to merge the chain call (edit: inb4 someone says “use .startsWith())

[Shawn]

shrung, chalk it up to IDE weirdness I guess

[Hullaballoonatic]

use .startsWith()

[Hullaballoonatic]

I'm sorry. you made me do it..