Sylvain Wallez dijo: > Antonio Gallardo wrote: > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] dijo: >> >> >>>joerg 2004/03/03 11:47:35 >>> >>> Modified: src/blocks/woody/java/org/apache/cocoon/woody/binding >>> RepeaterJXPathBinding.java >>> Log: >>> clean up: removed unused code (for reverting changes we have CVS, so >>>please remove old stuff always), JavaDoc added, comments fixed; >>> changed isNullAllListElements() => isAnyListElementNotNull(): the >>>duplicate negation at usage time breaks my brain ;-) >>> >>> >> >>This depends of the POV you see it: >> >>isNullAllListElements() -> This is not a negation. It check if : >> >>All elements on the List are null. Where is the negation? >> >>isAnyListElementNotNull() -> Here is a negation "Not null" :-D >> >> > > Generally speaking, negative forms should be avoided, as their > interpretation may be difficult depending on people's linguistic > background. I used to work with Japanese people long time ago, and I'm > sure this name, even with a single negation, would be very hard for them > to understand.
I agree. > > So what about "hasNonNullElements()"? The problem again is the "hidden" Non. This is a kind of negative. Look as the "standard" isNull() function. Why it is not isNotNull()? Because there is a negation. Then, the original function name is better to me: isNullAllListElements() or areNullAllListElements() To me it clearly states what we had in mind. Goerg changed the function name (and behavior) to write: if (isAnyListElementNotNull(...)) instead of if (!isNullAllListElements(...)) As a rule I try to avoid negation inside the names. In the case hasNonNullElements(), we can write also: if (hasNonNullElements()) Interesting is that the method need to check for each element if the value is null. At the end, I think I am not the best to decide the best name of the function. :-D Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo.