GitHub user jaikiran opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/49
[master branch] - Fix BZ-58683
The commit here fixes the issue reported at
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58683.
This commit along with fixing the issue reported in that bug,
I am well aware that I'm not producing new code, only making it more
readable -- for myself, maybe.
Readability means similar patterns, and dissimilarities sometimes grind my
gears.
We may argue about what is more readable
foo = foo == null ? bar : foo;
or
if (foo == null) {
foo = bar;
}
(
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Gintautas Grigelionis <
g.grigelio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, my rule was simple: an "if ((..." with multiple leading parens is only
> necessary where the logical condition is indeed complex.
>
I guess my point is more that such changes are a bit futile,
and code c
Hi Dominique,
I'm glad to have elicited some discussion :-)
The syntax depends not only on associativity, but on precedence as well.
The only place where precedence could be misleading are bitwise operations
[1] (for backwards compatibility :-)
So, my rule was simple: an "if ((..." with multiple l
On 08/12/17 2:23 PM, Dominique Devienne wrote:
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:53 AM, wrote:
Repository: ant-ivy
Updated Branches:
refs/heads/master 1b84f2ee7 -> 12aeeec70
tidy up the code
-if ((currentTask.getTaskName() != null)
+if (currentTask.getTaskName() != null
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:53 AM, wrote:
> Repository: ant-ivy
> Updated Branches:
> refs/heads/master 1b84f2ee7 -> 12aeeec70
>
> tidy up the code
> -if ((currentTask.getTaskName() != null)
> +if (currentTask.getTaskName() != null
> && currentTask.getT
