Hi Max,

Max Berger wrote:
> Vincent,
> 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.
> http://jeuclid.hg.sourceforge.net/hgweb/jeuclid/jeuclid/file/tip/support/build-tools/src/main/resources/jeuclid/checkstyle.xml
>> 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.
>> WDYT?
> I like the rule, BUT I am ok with an exception for setters and
> constructors (this is IMO a new option in checkstyle 5):
> http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/config_coding.html#HiddenField

(Actually this option is available in checkstyle 4.)

But what is the benefit of that rule? I find it annoying, so unless I am
convinced of its usefulness I’d rather disable it.


Reply via email to