scripted-diff: Prefer x.empty() over x.size() == 0 and x.length() == 0 #10715

pull practicalswift wants to merge 5 commits into bitcoin:master from practicalswift:empty changing 38 files +104 −94

practicalswift commented at 9:38 PM on July 2, 2017: contributor
Changes:
- Prefer x.empty() over x.size() == 0 and x.length() == 0
- Prefer !x.empty() over bool(x.size())
- Prefer !x.empty() over x.size() > 0
Rationale:
- Improve readability.
- Avoid nongeneric code - see "T.143: Don't write unintentionally nongeneric code" in the C++ Core Guidelines (Stroustrup & Sutter): "Emptiness works for more containers than size(), because some containers don't know their size or are conceptually of unbounded size."
practicalswift renamed this:
~~scripted-diff: Prefer x.empty() over x.size() == 0 or x.length() == 0~~
scripted-diff: Prefer x.empty() over x.size() == 0 and x.length() == 0
on Jul 2, 2017
fanquake added the label Refactoring on Jul 3, 2017

promag commented at 8:37 AM on July 3, 2017: member

Should these

if (container.size()) { ... }
if (container.size() > 0) { ... }

if (!container.empty()) { ... }

practicalswift force-pushed on Jul 3, 2017
practicalswift force-pushed on Jul 3, 2017
practicalswift commented at 2:42 PM on July 3, 2017: contributor

@promag Updated! :-)
promag commented at 8:14 PM on July 3, 2017: member

Rename PR to something along "Prefer empty over size or length"?
Implement CAddrMan::empty() + prevector_tester::empty() 8ccabae7dd

scripted-diff: Prefer x.empty() over x.size() == 0

-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
sed -i 's/\.size() == 0/.empty()/g' src/*.cpp src/*.h src/*/*.cpp src/*/*.h
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-

6c54ab0934

scripted-diff: Prefer x.empty() over x.length() == 0

-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
sed -i 's/\.length() == 0/.empty()/g' src/*.cpp
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-

a73aee3a68

Remove no longer needed parentheses a032c389cd
practicalswift force-pushed on Jul 3, 2017
practicalswift force-pushed on Jul 4, 2017
Prefer !x.empty() over bool(x.size()) and x.size() > 0 383a0dfde8
practicalswift force-pushed on Jul 4, 2017
practicalswift closed this on Jul 4, 2017
promag commented at 8:47 AM on July 4, 2017: member

@practicalswift Why was this closed?
practicalswift commented at 8:59 AM on July 4, 2017: contributor

@promag Two reasons - when thinking about it I had my doubts if this PR is worth doing (the changes might be a bit too picky and the number of changes make it a bit heavy to review) and also that the PR failed to gain any concept ACKs from core developers :-) But thanks for reviewing anyways!
promag commented at 9:03 AM on July 4, 2017: member

NP.
practicalswift deleted the branch on Apr 10, 2021
DrahtBot locked this on Aug 16, 2022

Contributors

Labels