Matt, thanks for your comments.
I guess you're right, we should probably add all of the negated calls:
isEmpty isNotEmpty
isWhitespace isNotWhitespace
isTrivial isNotTrivial
isBlank isNotBlank
This morning I'm feeling like they should all be "isNotSomething" for the
sake of uniformity with most other code. At least there's only one that's
incorrect English (to my ears, at leas).
I certainly don't object to the negated methods, it's just that I tend to
prefer the streamlined API.
.T.
On 7/15/03 4:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As a user I agree with the benefits of both proposals (can't decide which I
> prefer yet). When I saw the initial proposal I wasn't happy either but could
> not come up with a 'complete' solution either.
>
> one point on the first though, I would find in my code that the vast
> majority of my use cases would be
>
> if (! isTrivial(s)) {
> // do something that assumes a non null / length() > 0 string
> }
>
> I dislike overuse of (! someMethod()), especially since I started doing code
> maintenace with the help of back browse facilities which find method usage
> (rather than more fallible regexp). I would therefore like isNonTrivial(s)
> to be provided.
>
> Matt
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Todd Jonker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: 15 July 2003 02:39
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: [lang] Pre 2.0 - StringUtils.isEmpty(),
>> isNotEmpty() and stringsa with somespaces
> <snip>
>> I tend to dislike thinks like isNotBlank since it increases
>> the number of
>> methods one needs to wade through, but adds no new semantic
>> expressiveness.
>> Also, the methods above would lead to isNotTrivial, where
>> isNonTrivial is much more natural
> <snip>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
