2009/9/29 Vincent Hennebert <>:
> I started to write my own checkstyle configuration from scratch some
> time ago, enabling everything that looked important to me. But I’d like
> to test it a bit more before submitting it.

Same here. See the checkstyle file for JEuclid as an example.

> Speaking of that, there’s a rule that I would suggest to disable: the
> HiddenFieldCheck. I don’t really see its benefit. It forces to find
> somewhat artificial names for variables, where the field name is exactly
> what I want. Sometimes a method doesn’t have a name following the
> setField pattern, yet still acts as a setter for Field. This rule would
> make sense if we were using a Hungarian-like notation for variables
> (mMember, pParam, etc.), but that’s not the case in FOP.

I like the rule, BUT I am ok with an exception for setters and
constructors (this is IMO a new option in checkstyle 5):


Reply via email to