Hi Max,

> > 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

The exclusion of constructors an setters is important. Otherwise we
would be forced to use some Hungarian-like scope notation.

But why do you think, that this rule is useful at all?

Best Regards

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

Reply via email to