Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #11538

Re: Blocks for scope control

Path	csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Lew <noone@lewscanon.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Blocks for scope control
Date	Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:24:52 -0800
Organization	albasani.net
Lines	33
Message-ID	<jfct42$tl3$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink)
References	<dBCQq.122$d%2.16@newsfe07.iad> <jev7op$j4k$1@news.albasani.net> <IRHQq.2650$2C.1194@newsfe20.iad> <jevoes$qru$1@news.albasani.net> <2P3Sq.1782$lS6.832@newsfe20.iad> <9nsk4fFganU1@mid.individual.net> <invariant-20120120210428@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8bit
X-Trace	news.albasani.net FK3l6XBoJQxQ2TnETB7eC9ZVjhEvSJKbSSHUc3p1kNFJbLZQXPHJlWcaC2+uWD8P52J72uE3mjyuGyMIT5DkPgtPwBBbTWQuM6CJ//H/evQURloIEtuEJoK/CR6yDaOS
NNTP-Posting-Date	Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:24:50 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info	news.albasani.net; logging-data="QQ6HeTBiYqTGk1eyMZsrz8rWYmDwZE8P/Tt8ef/gVcYtlkYWO4csnZpq+/4/atDaueEzhG89JuUpWaNcBi+FKXmebLDs5eVjQ1nPp2+3Qvo0PVcLiLgTiLuegR9hDFua"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net"
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111124 Thunderbird/8.0
In-Reply-To	<invariant-20120120210428@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
Cancel-Lock	sha1:f/BCj2NsXNJbcBdTnnSDt7UpySQ=
Xref	x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:11538

Show key headers only | View raw

On 01/20/2012 12:07 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Robert Klemme<shortcutter@googlemail.com>  writes:
>> commenting is needed.  I frequently have a private boolean method
>> "classInvariant" or with other (hopefully telling) name with checks and
>
> private static boolean  classInvariant(){ ... }
> private        boolean objectInvariant(){ ... }
>
>    However, since it's boolean, I prefer »is«- or »has«-names:
>
> boolean isValid(){ ... }
>
>    . One can compare the readability of:
>
> if( this.classInvariant() )...
>
>    and
>
> if( this.isValid() )...
>
>    .

There is rarely, if ever, a good reason to qualify a method name with 'this.' 
  It does not affect the semantics of the statement, and as documentation is 
misleading.

The canonical mechanism to prove invariants is the 'assert' statement.  It is 
a compiler- and runtime-enforced program comment.

-- 
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg

Thread

Blocks for scope control Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-01-15 11:50 -0400
  Re: Blocks for scope control Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-01-15 17:10 +0100
  Re: Blocks for scope control Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-01-15 17:32 +0100
    Re: Blocks for scope control Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-15 11:21 -0800
    Re: Blocks for scope control Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-01-16 07:59 +0100
  Re: Blocks for scope control markspace <-@.> - 2012-01-15 09:57 -0800
    Re: Blocks for scope control Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-15 11:28 -0800
  Re: Blocks for scope control Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-15 11:00 -0800
    Re: Blocks for scope control Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-01-15 17:49 -0400
      Re: Blocks for scope control Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-15 15:45 -0800
        Re: Blocks for scope control Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-01-19 21:54 -0400
          Re: Blocks for scope control Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-01-20 08:41 +0100
            Re: Blocks for scope control Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-20 15:24 -0800
            Re: Blocks for scope control Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-01-20 19:30 -0400
              Re: Blocks for scope control Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-20 15:54 -0800
      Re: Blocks for scope control Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-01-16 07:55 +0100
        Re: Blocks for scope control Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-01-19 21:16 -0400
          Re: Blocks for scope control Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-01-21 13:25 +0100
            Re: Blocks for scope control Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-01-21 10:41 -0400
              Re: Blocks for scope control Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-01-22 13:03 +0100
  Re: Blocks for scope control Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-01-16 06:09 -0800
    Re: Blocks for scope control Henk van Voorthuijsen <voorth@xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-16 07:03 -0800
  Re: Blocks for scope control Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-01-17 18:43 -0500
  Re: Blocks for scope control Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-01-20 11:05 -0800
  Re: Blocks for scope control Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-01-20 12:11 -0800
  Re: Blocks for scope control Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-06 21:24 -0500

csiph-web