Hello, has any way to improve this conditional? `read.cutOn != meterCut && (meter.cutDate !=...

# codereview

[vinicius.rob.cunha]

Hello, has any way to improve this conditional?
read.cutOn != meterCut && (meter.cutDate != null || readDate.after(meter.cutDate))

[janvladimirmostert]

vinicius.rob.cunha:

This part:

(meter.cutDate != null || readDate.after(meter.cutDate))

Does the logic mean, if meter.cutDate is null, do a readDate.after(null) ?
Not sure I follow the logic

[janvladimirmostert]

Was just wondering if that shouldn’t have been an && instead, then it would be possible to simplify it.

[vinicius.rob.cunha]

Right == null instead of != null

[vinicius.rob.cunha]

read.cutOn != meterCut && (meter.cutDate == null || readDate.after(meter.cutDate))

[janvladimirmostert]

the part in the brackets , there are several options. let should help here:

Haven’t tested this code, try it first:

meter.cutDate?.let { readDate.after(it) } ?: true

[janvladimirmostert]

http://beust.com/weblog/2016/01/14/a-close-look-at-kotlins-let/

[vinicius.rob.cunha]

amazing, i didn't know let. Thanks 😉

[janvladimirmostert]

The way your code is structured right now is actually more readable than using let

[leosan]

I think you can also use then which is a more readable let

[janvladimirmostert]

@leosan Do you have an example using then. Kinda hard Google for an example when it’s such a common word.

[leosan]

@janvladimirmostert Sorry, I meant use also 😛 as

meter.cutDate?.also{ readDate.after(it) } ?: true

[elect]

I never heard about then