On 05.04.2021 00:21, Zala Pierre GOUPIL wrote:
In your case, with a function call, this wouldn't make a difference
"if(request.getCharacterEncoding() = null)" would be illegal syntax as
well, but "if(someObject = null)" is perfectly legal, but doesn't
express the author's intent clearly: Is it a
> >
> > In your case, with a function call, this wouldn't make a difference
> > "if(request.getCharacterEncoding() = null)" would be illegal syntax as
> > well, but "if(someObject = null)" is perfectly legal, but doesn't
> > express the author's intent clearly: Is it a smart person who's taking a
>
On 04.04.2021 12:57, Olaf Kock wrote:
Hi André
On 04.04.21 12:23, André Warnier (tomcat/perl) wrote:
if (null == request.getCharacterEncoding()) {
as opposed to
if (request.getCharacterEncoding() == null) {
So why do (some) people write it the other way ?
Is it purely a question of i
Hi André
On 04.04.21 12:23, André Warnier (tomcat/perl) wrote:
>
> if (null == request.getCharacterEncoding()) {
>
> as opposed to
>
> if (request.getCharacterEncoding() == null) {
>
>
> So why do (some) people write it the other way ?
> Is it purely a question of individual programming style
On 4/4/21 12:23 PM, André Warnier (tomcat/perl) wrote:
Hi.
I have a question which may be totally off-topic for this list, but
this has been puzzling me for a while and I figure that someone here
may be able to provide some clue as to the answer, or at least some
interesting ponts of view.
I
Hi.
I have a question which may be totally off-topic for this list, but this has been puzzling
me for a while and I figure that someone here may be able to provide some clue as to the
answer, or at least some interesting ponts of view.
In various places (including on this list), I have seen mu
