----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaroslaw Kowalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Gert Driesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "! nant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] Implicit conversions in expressions
> > We (I added this recently) currently also allow an implicit conversion
of
> > null to a (empty) string, which is useful for functions that return
> > reference types (eg. framework::get-runtime-engine()). Should we keep
> this,
> > or do you want to add a "is-null()" function (in what namespace) and a
> > conversion function from null to (empty) string ?
>
> the idea is ok, but should add more checks for null. Like here:
>
> switch (op) {
> case ExpressionTokenizer.TokenType.EQ:
> return o.Equals(o2);
>
> case ExpressionTokenizer.TokenType.NE:
> return !o.Equals(o2);
> ...
> }
>
Yes, ofcourse ... Can you take care of this ?
> > That reminds me : we need to document the return type of functions too
in
> > the generated docs ...
>
> yes. the function docs are lagging a bit.
I was actually talking about the NAnt documenter itself, not the class docs
...
Gert
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click
_______________________________________________
nant-developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
