Honestly, *that* would be MUCH simpler:
private String getStringNotNull(String string) {
if (string == null) {
return "";
}
return string;
}
public String getLabel1 (){
return getStringNotNull(__label1);
}
public String getLabel2 (){
return getStringNotNull(__label2);
}
public String getLabel3 (){
return getStringNotNull(__label3);
}
public String getLabel4 (){
return getStringNotNull(__label4);
}
public String getLabel5 (){
return getStringNotNull(__label5);
}
public String getLabel6 (){
return getStringNotNull(__label6);
}
public String getLabel7 (){
return getStringNotNull(__label7);
}
Tom
At 21:34 23.03.2002 +0100, you wrote:
>Donald McLean wrote:
> > -1000
>
>Whow, that's a lot.
>
>Honestly, Donald,
>isn't it
> - MUCH easier to write
> - MUCH easier to read
> - MUCH easier to notice the similarity between the methods in
> and finally
> - MUCH easier to find the typo in
>
> version A than in version B :
>
>
>Version A:
>
>
> public String getLabel1 (){ return (__label1 == null ? "" : __label1 ) ;}
> public String getLabel2 (){ return (__label2 == null ? "" : __label2 ) ;}
> public String getLabel3 (){ return (__label3 == null ? "" : __label3 ) ;}
> public String getLabel4 (){ return (__label3 == null ? "" : __label4 ) ;}
> public String getLabel5 (){ return (__label5 == null ? "" : __label5 ) ;}
> public String getLabel6 (){ return (__label6 == null ? "" : __label6 ) ;}
> public String getLabel7 (){ return (__label7 == null ? "" : __label7 ) ;}
>
>
>or
>Version B:
>
> public String getLabel1 ()
> {
> if ( __label1 == null ){
> return "";
> }
> else {
> return __label1 ;
> }
> }
> public String getLabel2 ()
> {
> if ( __label2 == null ){
> return "";
> }
> else {
> return __label2 ;
> }
> }
> public String getLabel3 ()
> {
> if ( __label3 == null ){
> return "";
> }
> else {
> return __label3 ;
> }
> }
> public String getLabel4 ()
> {
> if ( __label3 == null ){
> return "";
> }
> else {
> return __label4 ;
> }
> }
> public String getLabel5 ()
> {
> if ( __label5 == null ){
> return "";
> }
> else {
> return __label5 ;
> }
> }
> public String getLabel6 ()
> {
> if ( __label6 == null ){
> return "";
> }
> else {
> return __label6 ;
> }
> }
> public String getLabel7 ()
> {
> if ( __label7 == null ){
> return "";
> }
> else {
> return __label7 ;
> }
> }
>
>
>Alain Ravet
>
>
>
> > I thought the whole point of refactoring was to make code
> > more readable? If this is the kind of code you want, why
> > aren't you programming in C++ or APL?
> >
> > I'd like to see the OPPOSITE refactoring, which we ALWAYS
> > use whenever we see one of those darned ? operators in
> > our legacy code.
> >
> >
> >>>"Alain Ravet" wrote
> >>>Request : new refactoring
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>From :
> >>>
> >>> if (__phoneFax == null){
> >>> return EMPTY_STRING;
> >>> }
> >>> else {
> >>> return __phoneFax;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>to :
> >>> return (__phoneFax == null ? EMPTY_STRING: __phoneFax ) ;
> >>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Eap-features mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-features
_______________________________________________
Eap-features mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-features
