Null use should be okay for comparisons about scapegoat HOT 4 CLOSED

Comparion to null might be better achieved by wrapping in an Option ?

if (person.name != null) or Option(person.name) match { .. } or are you
talking about something else ?

On 18 August 2014 18:35, Adam Lesperance [email protected] wrote:

There are many times when you need to check if something is null (either
with a direct comparison or through a match statement), especially when
dealing with Java. This should not throw a warning.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#53.

from scapegoat.

Yes I do that in my utils class... it's pretty wasteful to wrap something in an option just to see if it's null (imo). If you don't want to turn it off I'll just keep adding annotations, just seems like the warning should be more for when you assign things as null.

from scapegoat.

Maybe the solution is to break the inspection into two - null comparison
and null assignment. Then you can just completely disable either or ?

On 18 August 2014 19:14, Adam Lesperance [email protected] wrote:

Yes I do that in my utils class... it's pretty wasteful to wrap something
in an option just to see if it's null (imo). If you don't want to turn it
off I'll just keep adding annotations, just seems like the warning should
be more for when you assign things as null.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#53 (comment)
.

from scapegoat.

That seems like the most elegant solution

from scapegoat.