Question

Can I refactor like this, are these equivalent and therefore the simpler straighforward version of the code is preferred?

Before refactoring:

    if (!matcher.matches() && !matcher2.matches() && !matcher3.matches()
            && !matcher4.matches() && !matcher5.matches()
            && !matcher6.matches() && !matcher7.matches()
            && !matcher8.matches()) {
        return true;
    } else
        return false;

After refactoring:

    return (matcher.matches() || matcher2.matches() || matcher3.matches()
            || matcher4.matches() || matcher5.matches()
            || matcher6.matches() || matcher7.matches()
            || matcher8.matches()) 

Answer 1

No, they are not equivalent. You have to add ! in front of the second option.

The fixed second option is more clear for sure:

return !(matcher.matches() || matcher2.matches() || matcher3.matches()
            || matcher4.matches() || matcher5.matches()
            || matcher6.matches() || matcher7.matches()
            || matcher8.matches()) 

I will also refactor it this way:

boolean atLeastOneMatch = matcher.matches() || matcher2.matches() || matcher3.matches()
                || matcher4.matches() || matcher5.matches()
                || matcher6.matches() || matcher7.matches()
                || matcher8.matches();

return !atLeastOneMatch;