Which do you like better? :one: ```boxes.forEach {...

# codingconventions

[Ellen Spertus]

Which do you like better?
1️⃣

boxes.forEach {
    it.setOnClickListener { 
        makeColored(it) 
    }
}

2️⃣

boxes.forEach { it.setOnClickListener { makeColored(it) } }

3️⃣ @Marc Knaup

boxes.forEach { it.setOnClickListener(::makeColored) }

4️⃣ @ephemient

for (box in boxes) {
    box.setOnClickListener { makeColored(it) }
}

5️⃣ @Marc Knaup @ephemient

for (box in boxes) {
    box.setOnClickListener(::makeColored)
}

[Marc Knaup]

boxes.forEach { it.setOnClickListener(::makeColored) }

if possible 😁

In your cases 1 & 2 you’ll get a warning that you use two it. One parameter should be named.

I’d use 2) if fits with line limit, 1) otherwise.

[ephemient]

personally, I avoid .forEach() if a for () loop would work. if you have a nullable chain then sure, ?.forEach() is nice, but otherwise there's no reason.

for (box in boxes) {
    box.setOnClickListener { makeColored(it) }
}

[Ellen Spertus]

Thanks, @Marc Knaup @ephemient. I should have offered "none of the above".

[Ellen Spertus]

I'll add your solutions if you don't mind.

[Marc Knaup]

Why would we mind? 🙂

I’d actually use @ephemient’s, but modified.

for (box in boxes)
    box.setOnClickListener(::makeColored)

[Marc Knaup]

I’m not really a fan of forEach unless it’s part of a longer chain or necessary for some other reason.

[Ellen Spertus]

@Marc Knaup I'll add that with braces. I'm a stickler for them if the statement is multiple lines.

[Marc Knaup]

Well with multiple statements you’ll need braces, yes 😄

[Ellen Spertus]

You could write it:

for (box in boxes) box.setOnClickListener(::makeColored))

and satisfy the coding guidelines as well as the compiler.

[therealbluepandabear]

@Ellen Spertus that option is definitely the best

[gildor]

I prefer 3️⃣ with named param:
boxes.forEach { box ->

[gildor]

not a fan of for/in syntax