if(false == component.isVisible()) --- now that is PRETTY *g*
Am 23.03.2010 um 23:34 schrieb Igor Vaynberg: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Thomerson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Rather, there should be a rule that >> checks for accidental assignment (i.e. "foo = false"). > > there is one, at least in eclipse. > > -igor > >> >> Anyway, I agree with Igor (a later post on this thread) - let's not tweak >> just to tweak. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Thomerson >> http://www.wickettraining.com >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:31 AM, tetsuo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Taking specifically your example, 'foo == false' is too similar to 'foo = >>> false', which also compiles, and is probably an error (not just checking >>> the >>> value, but changing it. '!foo' or 'false == foo' ('false = foo' doesn't >>> compile) may be better choices. >>> >>> But yes, most of these warnings are just about taste or rules without >>> context, and I don't think they should even be cosidered 'fixes'. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Jeremy Thomerson < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I would reject patchs to fix some of those. Some of those so-called >>>> "violations" are just their coding style not being the same as ours. >>>> >>>> For instance, they say there are 218 "violations" where we have 'if (foo >>> == >>>> false)' - which they say should be simplified, I'm assuming to be 'if >>>> (!foo)'. Personally, I write mine as "foo == false" because it is much >>>> harder to miss that than it is to miss "!" as you're reading through the >>>> code. >>>> >>>> Another example: "empty method in abstract class should be abstract". >>> No, >>>> it shouldn't. It's a method designed to be overridden for additional >>>> functionality if you so desire. >>>> >>>> There might be some that are worth fixing. But as I mention, there are >>>> some >>>> that are better left alone. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jeremy Thomerson >>>> http://www.wickettraining.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:39 AM, nino martinez wael < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi I wondered >>>>> >>>>> if it would be interesting if I started to make wicket more in >>>>> compliance with the rules defined here: >>>>> http://nemo.sonarsource.org/drilldown/violations/44196?priority=MAJOR >>>>> ? >>>>> >>>>> I'd of course start by submitting patches.. >>>>> >>>>> So are it interesting? >>>>> >>>>> regards Nino >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
