Paul Field wrote: > I'm for having the methods, although I prefer the "isOnOrAfter/isOnOrBefore" > naming. > > For me, the reason for having the extra methods is for readability; > '!a.isAfter(b)' is logically equivalent to 'a.isOnOrBefore(b)' but they read > differently and so can make code easier to understand. If the naming of the > method is "isNotAfter" then I don't see the advantage over using the existing > method with the not operator (!a.isAfter(b)).
These are the options: !a.isAfter(b) a.isNotAfter(b) a.isOnOrBefore(b) Personally, I am finding the latter two considerably more readable than the existing code. However, which method naming you pick probably depends on your exact use case - which is of course a problem (and thus why we have votes 50/50 for each :-) Stephen ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Joda-interest mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/joda-interest
