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. Vincent
