Mike Shaver wrote:
>> I'm trying to come up w/ some trend that will allow for the
>> requirement of semantic knowledge about the method to be outside the
>> norm. People don't code by looking at the docs (usually
>> non-existant), or digging into the impl, of every method call they make.
>
>
>
> If you don't know the semantics of the method you're calling, what are
> you doing calling it?
you get my point. there are usage 'isms that people like to fall back
on... standards of conduct if you will. I'm specifically talking about
the null out param semantics which, as the entire tree suggests, are
rarely understood.
I think we can do better than this. haven't you ever been reviewing
someone's code, or them reviewing yours, and you get into a discussion
about "should you be checking for null, and/or the return val of the
method." I'd like to restrict things a bit so we can start making some
assumptions about "Get"ers.
Jud
