Really depends about whether you want the method to be bad English, or really bad English. :-). All this double negativity gets me down. What's wrong with exists() ?
Sent from my iPhone On 20 Jun 2013, at 08:24, Howard Lovatt <howard.lov...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would say not needed, !isNull() is sufficient. If included isNotNull() is > the better name. > > > On 5 May 2013 01:09, Ulf Zibis <ulf.zi...@cosoco.de> wrote: > >> >> Am 04.05.2013 04:28, schrieb Mike Duigou: >>> I have updated the webrev to include incorporate the feedback I have >> received. >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/JDK-8013712/1/webrev/ >>> >>> Regarding the naming of the "nonNull" method. I originally added this >> method in 2011 but I've forgotten since then why it has the name it does. >> As best as I can determine the name is either derived from the the name >> used by Guava for the same predicate, "notNull", or the names derives from >> the name "requireNonNull" in that this method doesn't require that the >> reference be non-null. The EG hasn't been concerned that this method >> doesn't use the "is" prefix. >> >> Do we need nonNull/isNotNull() at all, as it's always !isNull()? >> Anyway I would prefer isNotNull(). >> >> -Ulf > > > -- > -- Howard. >
