missed a paren above (for the people that are going to past the code into a
shell and try it out) - something that I am not doing. Still, this is
closer:
# wishful thinking...
using Dates;
leapDay = isleapyear(yr) ? Date(yr,2,29) : nothing
if ! leapDay
doy = dayofyear( leapDay )
... clean and concise (thought that was the point), but we get
leapDay = isleapyear (yr)? Nullable {Date} (Date (yr, 2:29)): Nullable
{Date} ()
if ! isnull( leapDay )
doy = dayofyear( get(leapDay) )
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Michael Landis <[email protected]>
wrote:
> # wishful thinking...
> using Dates;
> leapDay = isleapyear(yr) ? Date(yr,2,29) : nothing
> if ! leapDay
> dow = dayofyear( leapDay )
> ... clean and concise (thought that was the point), but we get
>
> leapDay = isleapyear(yr) ? Nullable{Date}( Date(yr,2,29) : Nullable{Date}()
> if ! isnull( leapDay )
> dow = dayofyear( get(leapDay) )
> ...
>
> If I am dumb enough to forget to check for a null date, I deserve the
> exception - the code would be wrong. Making me type two or three times as
> many characters, obscuring what is actually going on, ... all to eliminate
> NullPointerExceptions? I have to write exception free code anyway, so all
> I have 'gained' is a lot of superfluous verbosity. I'm going to side with
> salience over verbosity every time. The type safe argument just doesn't
> sell me, sorry.
>
