On Sun, 17 February 2002, "Waldhoff, Rodney" wrote: > > > AFAIK, the change to print would've broken > > existing code compatibility. > > True, although the current behavior: > if(s == null) s = "null"; > is a bit quirky, don't you think?
Yes, doesn't look pretty, looks hacky to me. > I'd be in favor of not allowing null, but just let the s.length() call throw > the NullPointerException rather than explictly checking for null on each and > every call. When a one arg method throws NPE, it's pretty easy to figure > out what's null. Isn't this bad coding practice that also affects the code efficiency? Otis _________________________________________________________________ iVillage.com: Solutions for Your Life Check out the most exciting women's community on the Web http://www.ivillage.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
