I'd prefer if we leave the extra parens. IMO clarity trumps teachable
moments. Just disable the warning?
On May 13, 2013 8:26 AM, "Nick Williams" <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net>
wrote:
> It's not 100% harmless, but it is harmless as far as operation of the code.
>
> To understand how it could cause "harm", consider the situation where
> another developer who understands precedence incorrectly happens across the
> code and sees these parentheses. Seeing these parentheses will solidify his
> incorrect understanding of precedence. If, however, he sees it without
> parentheses, it will not make sense to him, and he will have to look up
> Java operator precedence to understand why it works.
>
> An unlikely scenario, to be sure, but that's enough to make me remove the
> parentheses.
>
> Nick
>
> On May 13, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
>
> I'm guilty of that weird (and useless) style -- for me it's an old habit
> from C days where I frequently defined a return(X) macro when doing certain
> types of troubleshooting.
>
> While this case is useless, it's also harmless.
>
> On 5/13/2013 10:14 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> The parentheses are useless to the compiler because && takes precedence
> over ||. The parentheses are useful to humans who have not memorized Java
> operator precedence ;)
>
> This warning is useful to catch weird style choices like "return (foo +
> bar);" I've seen other odd choices in parentheses styling.
>
> Gary
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Nick Williams <
> nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>
>> The PMD inspector says the following if statement contains "Useless
>> parentheses."
>>
>> if ((isEventTimestamp && isLiteralValue) || (isEventTimestamp &&
>> isPattern) || (isLiteralValue && isPattern)) {
>> LOGGER.error("The pattern, literal, and isEventTimestamp
>> attributes are mutually exclusive.");
>> return null;
>> }
>>
>> I'm all for removing useless parentheses; unfortunately, I don't see how
>> these are useless. The way I see it, if isLiteralValue is false, with
>> parentheses it will (correctly) continue to evaluate after the first
>> grouped condition but without parentheses it would (incorrectly) short
>> circuit after the first use of isLiteralValue.
>>
>> Am I missing something here? Or is this a PMD bug?
>>
>> Nick
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second
> Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
>
