Thanks, Michael. I have appended part of my remarks as a comment in support of yours to your bug report.
On Tuesday 30 April 2002 11:04 pm, you wrote: > On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Steve Cohen wrote: > > In Joshua Bloch's "Effective Java" he makes a point of stating that > > writers of Javadoc comments should be ESPECIALLY interested in > > documenting runtime exceptions that are NOT listed in the throws clause > > (as in fact, they're not required to be). Makes good sense to me, since > > you're not required to list these, how else are you going to warn users > > of your class that such may be thrown? > > > > However, the default settings of CheckStyle, at least those in use in the > > commons/sandbox/net project, seem to militate against doing this. > > Document a runtime exception that may be thrown without putting it in the > > throws clause and you'll get one of these errors: > > > > Unused @throws tag for 'IllegalArgumentException'. > > > > Is this setting really the way we want it to be? > > This is a bug in checkstyle. I filed a bug report at the beginning of > April: > > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=540382&group_id=29 >721&atid=397078 > > regards, > michael -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
