> d) The isXxxOrNull() naming is disliked as too long even > though its clear.
I don't agree with this. I'm very much in favor of precise, "intention-revealing" names. IMHO, isEmpty is unambiguous and should only mean that there's no content in the referenced String (that is, string.length() == 0). Empty means that there's some container that _could_ hold something, but null means that there's no container there at all (in a sense, string.length() == N/A). So, isEmptyOrNull() seems very straightforward and would remove all doubt that it's checking for null. > e) Similarly isEmptyTrimmed() naming is too long. I don't mind the length, but then I'm not sure here if it's checking for nulls. > f) More people want isEmpty() to be true for null than false. I can't disagree with that. While I for sure don't want isEmpty() to return true for a null (it's not empty, there's no 'it' there to check!), I'm not sure I like isEmpty() returning false for a null either, so a NPE would be appropriate. I would say that my most common usage is a replacement for: if ( ( string == null ) || ( string.length() == 0 ) ) So I'd be using isEmptyOrNull( string ). However, there certainly are times that I don't want a null to silently return false (such as when there's a contract with the rest of the code that nulls should not exist for this variable) and I'd use isEmpty( string ) in that case, fully expecting that if string == null, then a NPE would be thrown and I'd have the underlying bug fixed. ;ted --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
