Max, I don't think that Checkstyle is the right tool to avoid the
self-assignment problem. Tools like FindBugs are much better in that
regard since they actually check the semantics of the assignment rather
than just complaining that a field and a parameter are named the same.

On 01.10.2009 10:47:31 Max Berger wrote:
> Hi *,
> this rule is usefull in the case where you use common names for
> attributes (such as x, or y), and accidentially "overwrite" them as
> parameters. This again comes back to the point of readability.
> The same variable name should ALWAYS refer to the same variable / value.
> For setters and constructors this makes sense -> after all, in each of
> these you have a simple assignment, and both variables will carry the
> same value.
> But in most other methods, the parameter you pass is NOT assigned to the
> internal variable, so they actually refer to a different thing, and
> thats where the confusion starts.
> I know modern IDEs can show you which variable you actually refer to,
> but this usually requires selecting the variable or hovering over it,
> which you will not do if you are just reading the code trying to
> understand it.
> However, since we cannot agree to keep the rule, I'll have to be content
> with removing it (which is already done).
> Max
> Alexander Kiel schrieb:
> > 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):
> >>
> > 
> > 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
> > Alex
> -- 
> OpenPGP ID: C93C5700 Fpr: AB6638CE472A499B3959 ADA2F989A2E5C93C5700

Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to