Berin Loritsch wrote:
Jeff Turner wrote:
So is there any other reason for this? Can I do a massive grep for 'null !=' and change these?
No, I think that is the major reason.
I remember a discussion between Peter D. and someone here on the list about this. I can't find it in the web archive so I include it from my local history. It might not be interesting though.
<INCLUDED-MESSAGE>
At 08:24 1/12/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Just a stylistic nit-pick: > >I noticed you committed a change that does nothing >but change the style of the code. Let me explain >why I do it the way I do. > >regarding "if (null != message) ...": > >to me this is not semantically correct, it is kind >of backwards. We are not checking if null is >message, but if message is null. I also think that >by keeping it "if (message != null) ..." it is more >readable and understandable by most English speaking >folks.
I used to agree .. thou apparently we are wrong ;) (Had an argument with a professor over this one time ;] ) The reason basically comes down to
expectations. "if( XXX == ... )" where XXX is any immutable-constant (like integer values, floats, nulls) is meant to facilitate understanding. It helps you understand the difference between "constants" and l-vars (or whatever they are called). Students who were taught "if( XXX == ... )" gain a "deeper" understanding of programming language. In some languages (namely c/c++) it also has added benefit of using compiler to check you don't have single '=' etc - thou this is for all purposes not relevent to java.
<SNIP/>
Cheers,
Pete
</INCLUDED-MESSAGE>
Perhaps there is something to that, but ( null == arg ) still twists my head after some time spent on reading Avalon code ;)
Cheers,
// Johan
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
