Ok, after reviewing the answers, I will remove the "generics angular brackets whitespace-around" rule, but will maintain the "no public in interfaces" rule.
Antonio 2007/4/5, Nathan Bubna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 4/5/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/5/07, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > my preference - however slight - is to avoid specifying the public. In > > other words, if I'm writing the code, I won't put it in, but if someone > > else does, I don't consider it an issue. > > > > whatever others decide is fine with me. can't we just leave it open to > > the preference of the original author? > > > Actually, I would argue for consistency over any particular option. In other > words, it is more important to me to have all of the interfaces either > specify public or not specify public than for my preferred option (no > 'public' modifier) to "win". Having a mixture of 'public' and no 'public' is > even more likely to make people stop and wonder why it is used in some > places but not others. i wholeheartedly agree with this. > -- > Martin Cooper > > > Nathan Bubna wrote: > > > On 4/5/07, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> On 4/5/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > 2. The "public" redundant modifier is declared illegal in that > > >> > > checkstyle file, but I think that it is not so bad. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Here I disagree. IMHO, using 'public' in interfaces demonstrates a > > >> lack of > > >> > clarity. It constitutes "noise" in the interface definition that > > >> hinders > > >> > rapid comprehension. When someone reads through a set of interfaces > > and > > >> > sees > > >> > 'public' scattered around, they're likely to stop and wonder if the > > >> author > > >> > had some purpose to specifying 'public' that they should try to > > >> > understand, > > >> > when in reality the author was simply not thinking clearly enough to > > >> > translate their thoughts into accurate interface definitions. We > > should > > >> > always strive for maximum communication bandwidth, and not clutter > > the > > >> > code > > >> > with things that readers will trip over and have to stop and wonder > > >> about. > > > > > > -0 hindering rapid comprehension is *highly* subjective. it depends > > > on what you are trying to comprehend and what you are used to. in > > > this instance that is apparently different for you and me. :) > > > > > >> > > >> Interesting. I've always preferred to be explicit and express things > > >> that > > >> are true by default. > > > > > > agreed. i also like that the method signature looks like it does in > > > the implementation class. i prefer the consistency... > > > > > >> For example, I use "this." a lot (though probably not > > >> consistently enough to communicate anything). I can see your point > > >> but the > > >> lack of the public modifier would "hinder rapid comprehension" for me, > > >> just > > >> because I'm used to seeing it there. (To be real honest I didn't > > >> realize it > > >> was defaulted until I read this - though it makes sense). > > >> > > >> So should we cater to those who don't know the language well enough or > > >> cater > > >> to those who prefer language purit? Personally, I still prefer the > > >> former > > >> because I like being explicit, but I won't die on that hill. I'm > > >> willing to > > >> be convinced otherwise :-) > > > > > > i don't really care. to me it's a fairly trivial preference. and > > > whatever "hindrance" the lack of "public" might be to my comprehension > > > is entirely negligible. :) > > > > > >> Greg > > >> > > > > > >
