I don't think we need the id field here at all at this stage

As far as i can tell, fragments don't have an identifier. So this id is required to differentiate between each fragment for the permissionMap.
...though maybe we can abuse java itself. hashCode() should provide some unique string, so that could replace a dedicated ID implementation. Though i feel that this is not as maintainable and easy to understand.

I would opt for having only the Int and Fragment overload and skip the ID approach at least for now.

Sure, i can make the "String"-one private, but it is still internally required, so it cant be removed.

As far as i can tell, fragments don't have an identifier. So this id is required to differentiate between each fragment for the permissionMap.

In the method that accepts the Fragment, just check that instance against the private fragment list and get the index from there:

There is no need to have extra index at all IMHO

As far as i can tell, fragments don't have an identifier. So this id is required to differentiate between each fragment for the permissionMap.

In the method that accepts the Fragment, just check that instance against the private fragment list and get the index from there:

AppIntro/appintro/src/main/java/com/github/appintro/AppIntroBase.kt

Line 115 in 96b48b3

private val fragments: MutableList<Fragment> = mutableListOf()

There is no need to have extra index at all IMHO

Oh yeah, that is actually better!

I have added a check and a small convenience wrapper that combines the addSlide and askForPermission-calls.