You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net> on 2004/03/04 11:47:09 UTC
Re: cvs commit:
cocoon-2.1/src/blocks/woody/java/org/apache/cocoon/woody/binding
RepeaterJXPathBinding.java
Sylvain Wallez dijo:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>>joerg@apache.org dijo:
>>
>>
>>>joerg 2004/03/03 11:47:35
>>>
>>> Modified: src/blocks/woody/java/org/apache/cocoon/woody/binding
>>> RepeaterJXPathBinding.java
>>> Log:
>>> clean up: removed unused code (for reverting changes we have CVS, so
>>>please remove old stuff always), JavaDoc added, comments fixed;
>>> changed isNullAllListElements() => isAnyListElementNotNull(): the
>>>duplicate negation at usage time breaks my brain ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>This depends of the POV you see it:
>>
>>isNullAllListElements() -> This is not a negation. It check if :
>>
>>All elements on the List are null. Where is the negation?
>>
>>isAnyListElementNotNull() -> Here is a negation "Not null" :-D
>>
>>
>
> Generally speaking, negative forms should be avoided, as their
> interpretation may be difficult depending on people's linguistic
> background. I used to work with Japanese people long time ago, and I'm
> sure this name, even with a single negation, would be very hard for them
> to understand.
I agree.
>
> So what about "hasNonNullElements()"?
The problem again is the "hidden" Non. This is a kind of negative.
Look as the "standard" isNull() function. Why it is not isNotNull()?
Because there is a negation.
Then, the original function name is better to me:
isNullAllListElements() or
areNullAllListElements()
To me it clearly states what we had in mind.
Goerg changed the function name (and behavior) to write:
if (isAnyListElementNotNull(...))
instead of
if (!isNullAllListElements(...))
As a rule I try to avoid negation inside the names.
In the case hasNonNullElements(), we can write also:
if (hasNonNullElements())
Interesting is that the method need to check for each element if the
value is null.
At the end, I think I am not the best to decide the best name of the
function. :-D
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.