Isn't it enough trouble to have a 200 line method in the first place? And that's before you suppress warnings...
On 25 September 2010 10:18, Richard Fearn <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23 September 2010 22:39, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> > wrote: > > @SuppressWarnings("throws") is a bit drastic as now ANY omission of > > handling a checked exception anywhere in this code is going to go by > > unnoticed, and it also doesn't help readability because it doesn't > > list which particular kind of exception I'm actively going to ignore. > > This is a good point. I occasionally remind people that shoving > @SuppressWarnings("something") to the top of a 200-line method is > asking for trouble, because it causes *all* warnings of that type to > be ignored. > > I've sometimes gone as far as to move one or two lines of code into a > new method just so that @SuppressWarnings can be added to that method, > instead of a larger method. Keeping the scope of an @SuppressWarnings > as small as possible is a good idea. > > Of course, removing @SuppressWarnings altogether is even better :-) > > Rich > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Kevin Wright mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
