> The author doesn't even notice that the second argument of && is redundant
Doesn't it check if a list isn't null and then if the list has at least one item in it? Or are you simply saying the for loop takes care of the situation where there are 0 items in the list?
Doesn't it check if a list isn't null and then if the list has at least one item in it? Or are you simply saying the for loop takes care of the situation where there are 0 items in the list?