On Oct 5, 2013, at 9:23 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Oct 3, 2013, at 9:22 PM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 3, 2013, at 9:19 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> marcus for the critics next time please keep them else we will not be able >>> to decide if we used them or not. >>> This is not three little classes that will change something. Especially >>> when they are part of a large library. >>> >> >> But we don't use them. > > Yes but let us the time to think. > First we should run the critics on everything then fix the problem. -> the critic explicitly did not run them (there are more of that kind that i did not remove) -> I checked them and they where checking for special pragma tagged methods. Some pragmas that where used in some project but I have never seen them used *ever*. > We should reorganize many things. Removing three classes that are well > identified is not > nice because now if I want to know which rules were not good I will have to > load I do not know which > version. > The rules where really useless, they where testing a convention we don't use *and* they where already omitted by the critic browser. Here are the rationals of the three: rationale ^ 'Checks that methods marked with <modifier: #final> is never overridden.' rationale ^ 'Checks that a method marked with <modifier: #override> overrides an actual superclass method.' rationale ^ 'Checks that methods marked with <modifier: #super> are always called when overridden.' Marcus
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
