RE: checkstyle: public members
Jeremias Maerki wrote: +1 to everything Jörg said. Having 3 affirmative no negative votes, I have committed the change proposed by Joerg to checkstyle.cfg. Victor Mote - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: checkstyle: public members
Victor Mote wrote: checkstyle.pattern.publicmember = ^f[A-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]*$, which is the ... 1. was this really our intent? I'm not sure. Nevertheless, it was apparently made by well meaning people who thought detailed naming conventions would help to spot scope/type/semantic of an identifier easier. I've found again and again that this sucks for a variety of reasons. Let's change it to ^[a-z][a-zA-Z0-9]*$ 2. does anyone know what the f stand for? Field, I guess. 3. checkstyle actually suggests that Variable 'ipd' must be private and have accessor methods. Perhaps this is our preferred solution? This is usually a good idea but may cause quite a bit of work. J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: checkstyle: public members
J.Pietschmann wrote: Victor Mote wrote: checkstyle.pattern.publicmember = ^f[A-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]*$, which is the ... 1. was this really our intent? I'm not sure. Nevertheless, it was apparently made by well meaning people who thought detailed naming conventions would help to spot scope/type/semantic of an identifier easier. I've found again and again that this sucks for a variety of reasons. Let's change it to ^[a-z][a-zA-Z0-9]*$ +1 I don't think this was ever our intent. It was, I think, an issue whiich was discussed on the Wiki in relation to prefixes like m_. It was rejected there, and because it was not proceded with, it has disappeared from both the wiki and the web page. 2. does anyone know what the f stand for? Field, I guess. 3. checkstyle actually suggests that Variable 'ipd' must be private and have accessor methods. Perhaps this is our preferred solution? This is usually a good idea but may cause quite a bit of work. Peter -- Peter B. West http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: checkstyle: public members
+1 to everything Jörg said. On 13.07.2003 11:19:37 J.Pietschmann wrote: Victor Mote wrote: checkstyle.pattern.publicmember = ^f[A-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]*$, which is the ... 1. was this really our intent? I'm not sure. Nevertheless, it was apparently made by well meaning people who thought detailed naming conventions would help to spot scope/type/semantic of an identifier easier. I've found again and again that this sucks for a variety of reasons. Let's change it to ^[a-z][a-zA-Z0-9]*$ 2. does anyone know what the f stand for? Field, I guess. 3. checkstyle actually suggests that Variable 'ipd' must be private and have accessor methods. Perhaps this is our preferred solution? This is usually a good idea but may cause quite a bit of work. Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
checkstyle: public members
Fellow fop devs: Our current checkstyle configuration has a setting for checkstyle.pattern.publicmember = ^f[A-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]*$, which is the checkstyle default. See (for example) datatypes/FODimension where public members ipd and bpd are flagged by checkstyle for not fitting this pattern. Changing ipd to fIpd fixes the problem. Before I refactor this kind of item: 1. was this really our intent? 2. does anyone know what the f stand for? 3. checkstyle actually suggests that Variable 'ipd' must be private and have accessor methods. Perhaps this is our preferred solution? Victor Mote - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
