On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 13:49, Hope, Matthew wrote: > interesting problem... > > "empty string" has a very clear meaning in java, it is a non null String > object of zero length. > > Does the entrenched user base merit retaining a non standard naming > convention. > > or is Empty sufficiently entrenched to also mean null? (I don't think it is) > > I appreciate the dilemma but as a user would prefer it if the convention of > empty stayed as "" and only "". (but swallowing nulls and returning false id > just the ticket) > > My 2 cents > > Matt
This is the same as way I always interpret 'empty' in the context of a Java String object. A empty String is a zero length String, not a null object reference. I can easily see that equating a null to an empty String is convenient but I'd be happy to be explicit about this assumed equivalence in my code than have a method with a slightly misleading name. -Janek --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
