Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Daniel Keep
> <daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> nonEmpty -- as Walter one espoused: negative = bad, positive = good :D
>
> I think that's exactly the kind of thing he meant to avoid. Now you have
> if (!nonEmpty) { /* don't not do nothing here */ }
>
> Hopefully you were just joking...
>
> --bb
Thing is that most of the time, I'm more interested in testing to see if
a container/sequence has something in it rather than has nothing in it.
while( range.nonEmpty )
{
doSomethingWith(range.front);
range.advanceFront;
}
I admit that nonEmpty is probably a bad name; I just couldn't think of a
short and pithy way of saying 'has something in it.' Then again, I
don't want to start another war of semantics; it's not the end of the
world :P
-- Daniel
