On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:20:24 -0400, Justin Johansson <n...@spam.com>
wrote:
>#ponce Wrote:
>
>> It's a bit unclear to me.
>>
>> I know I must compare references with is but pointers ?
>
>Thanks for asking this question ponce; I've been getting into the habit of
>using 'is' for both pointers
>and classes, so in similar vein to ponce's question, I'd like to ask if the
>following (where foo is
>eother a pointer of class ref) is being overly pendantic in the case of null
>if tests:
>
>if (foo !is null) {
> // can do something with foo
>}
>
>as opposed to the shorter form, but possibly incorrect or less safe
>
>if (foo) {
> // can do somthing with foo
>}
>
>I think I would prefer the shorter form if its 100% good.
If you compare pointers or class references, it is 100% good to use
the shorter form. It is only 87% good if you compare arrays because
the shorter form means "if (arr.ptr)". So, if you are in the camp of
those who do not make a distinction between empty and null arrays you
should always use "if (arr.length)".
>
>Thanks all.
