Everyone I've ever talked to about it agrees that defining things to be a
negative is just a bad idea. Consider:
if (gronk) do_this();
else do_that();
versus
if (not_gronk) do_that();
else do_this();
It is one of the standard refactoring tricks to replace the second one
with the first. The w
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
> Please don't use 'but' to associate runtime properties to things.
> Please call it 'has'.
How about both?
Luke
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
> Everyone I've ever talked to about it agrees that defining things to be a
> negative is just a bad idea. Consider:
>
> if (gronk) do_this();
> else do_that();
>
> versus
>
> if (not_gronk) do_that();
> else do_this();
But look how well C read
In a message dated Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Daniel S. Wilkerson writes:
> It is one of the standard refactoring tricks to replace the second one
> with the first. The word "has" is in the positive, whereas "but" is a
> negative, but it assigns a positive, even more confusing.
"but" isn't a negative, no
