Emmanuel Bourg wrote on Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:58 PM: > Thomas Dudziak wrote: >> Btw, I think this check is actually a good idea (including >> @inheritDoc), because it forces the developer(s) to think about >> Javadoc which IMO is quite important for a library developed by >> multiple persons. > > True, but the rule could be twisted to something like "Raise > a warning > if the method has no javadoc and it doesn't override a method already > documented in a super class".
and at least for Eclipse 3.1 this produces also no longer a java doc warning. Additionally the javadoc is copied by the javadoc tool in this case anyway (with an appropriate remark) just like it is done for a plain @inheritDoc annotation. >> And adding an @inheritDoc doesn't cost much time, even if in 200 >> source files, and also has the benefit that it catches (hard-to-find) >> bugs where the base-class method signature was changed but not the >> one of the sub-class method. Since I removed those from my files they are much more readable. If an interface defines getter and setters it is really more than superfluous. If the method is overridden and actually *does* something different, it should have been documented anyway. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
