2016-11-01 12:39 GMT-03:00 Joachim Tuchel <jtuc...@objektfabrik.de>: > I know. That's exactly the reason why I never use isEmptyOrNil > > Fun aside: how often do we need to check if some code returns nil or an empty > collection. My question was aimed at exactly this: in practice ifEmptyOrNil: > would probably be even more frequently needed than ifEmpty:. Otherwise, the > beautiful convenience method has to be guarded by a nil test.... so we end up > writing lots of methods, and not all of them seem to be universal enough to > be part of the base image, imo.
To start with <http://wiki.c2.com/?NullConsideredHarmful>, and then... the best way to avoid testing for nil, is to not use it at all! Wherever possible a Null Object (as in <http://wiki.c2.com/?NullObject>) is a great replacement. It is, using a domain specific UndefinedObject instead of the default nil. Regards, Esteban A. Maringolo
