Re: Beginnerquestion about if (personName==null || personName.equals(""))
Re: Beginnerquestion about if (personName==null || personName.equals(""))
- Subject: Re: Beginnerquestion about if (personName==null || personName.equals(""))
- From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 12:53:42 -0400
DBC doesn't REALLY address this, though, right? It says whether my
method allows null values or not for certain parameters, and watches
my back there, but it still doesn't address what it means to call a
method on a null value. This thread is about explicitly asking to be
able to call methods on null pointers, which seems like super-un-
design-by-contract :)
Or do you just love to shout "DBC" ;)
ms
On Sep 8, 2007, at 12:48 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Sep 8, 2007, at 5:40 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
The problem with all of this is that the behavior against a null
is totally random ... Yeah, str.equals(whatever) when str is null
happens to make some sense. But what about list.isEmpty()? false?
really? I agree that it's more work to do the checks, but it's
right -- you have a null. It's not an instance. You can't call
methods on it and you shouldn't be able to. The problem is that if
the language gave you an operator (like groovy) to avoid these
checks, everyone would use it all the time, because programmers
are usually pretty lazy (myself included :) ), which would make
the whole thing pointless, and you'd just get random bugs. But I
know I'm in the minority here ....
Design by Contract baby!
:-)
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden