Folks,
I have been bothered by the name of a common method in doing some debugging over the past couple of
days - this note is suggesting a change and I'd like some opinions first.
The method in question is the isUnresolved()method.
Looks innocuous, until you see lots of statements like this one:
if (!composite.isUnresolved()) {
}
Now, it may just be me, but I have a hard time parsing out double negatives like
"not Unresolved".
This MEANS "is Resolved", but the construction makes it hard for me to take in.
Why dont we have a method "isResolved()" for artifacts?? Then the statement
would look like:
if (composite.isResolved()) {
}
....which I find crystal clear.
So, my suggestion is to add in a method isResolved() for all artifacts - and then we can start to
get rid of the "double negative" tests. We can keep isUnresolved() - if we're really checking for
that state, then a method reflecting that state is better than the double negative too. I see both
usecases often and so the desire for two methods.
Yours, Mike.
