> On 17 Jan 2016, at 18:12, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Jan 17, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> That’s the point. Someone finds this disruptive, someone instructing. But >> it’s always a true information. So here we are not dealing with the faults >> of algorithm but with a way we are communicating a data with a user. >> >> That’s why I kindly ask not to call this things “false positives” :). >> I thinks that it makes sense to be bale to disable some critics by their >> severity. >> >> Also I think that it’s a good thing to teach beginners to write class >> comments. You don’t need special skills for that and making it a habit from >> the beginning will payoff in the future. > > +1000!
+1 me too. I remember when Stef introduced the mark on uncomment classes I was against: I was finding the exclamation mark too disruptive. Then time proved me wrong: is a nice way to remember people they need to add class comments (and my own production of comments increased considerably). I think QA will do the same: it might look disruptive, but is educative in fact. cheers, Esteban > >> >> Cheers. >> Uko >> >> >> >> >>> On 17 Jan 2016, at 16:11, Cyril Ferlicot D. <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Le 17/01/2016 16:04, stepharo a écrit : >>>> We have also >>>> instance variables not written or read >>>> class comment is empty >>>> >>>> And I find that disruptive for a student starting with Pharo. >>> >>> I find that instructing. >>> When I create a class and I see those messages it's like "objectives". I >>> need to correct that and it help me not to avoid the documentation. >>> >>> -- >>> Cyril Ferlicot >>> >>> http://www.synectique.eu >>> >>> 165 Avenue Bretagne >>> Lille 59000 France >> >> >
