negative booleaan again

Busy with SortedNames TextFileIn suggests
* TextFileIn in = new TextFileIn("file.txt");
* boolean done = false ;
* while ( ! done )
etc.
If you do not like this (as you do

) change done into
boolean goOn = true ;
while ( goOn )
{...
Reason to think about avoiding negative booleans again?

I could never think of an identifier that I liked as well. So I suffer through adding the negation.

I agree. But the consequence is what should a greenhorn or ranchhand do if he likes a 'negative' way of expressing himself?
Ok, here we are kindly requested to follow the nitpickers meaning aren't we

?

How about this?
boolean done = false;
while ( done = false )
{
...
}
It preserves positive logic, is easy to read and gets around the naming problem. This is how I was taught back in my mainframe days, and IMHO is still useful.
Hope this helps.

<pre>
boolean done = false;
while ( done = false )
{
...
}
</pre>

I think you mean
while ( done == false )
Right?

Right Marilyn. That's one of those mistakes I make all the time. Fortunately the compiler bails me out!

IMHO, the positive version is easier to read and keep track of in a long program.
Matthew Phillips

never executes since in the while loop you are ASSIGNING false to done, not COMPARING it. Java doesn't warn you about that one like a good C++/C compiler would.

Originally posted by pete hesse:
How about this?
boolean done = false;
while ( done = false )
{
...
}
It preserves positive logic, is easy to read and gets around the naming problem. This is how I was taught back in my mainframe days, and IMHO is still useful.
Hope this helps.

No, only if you reverse!
while (false = done ) ...
Now a C-compiler would catch the error!
So in C it maybe wise to catch typing errors to create a habbit
to take constants in comparison first ??

Originally posted by Gareth Leachman:
Those mainframe dudes

Whats wrong with us ???