Hi Vincent,

> 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?

Yes I would vote for it. In modern IDE's one sees clearly the difference
between an instance field and a local variable. This is also the reason
why this Hungarian-like scope notation is largely gone in Java.


Best Regards
Alex

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to