Glen Mazza wrote:
> If the reason you gave in CVS for changing the code
> was just to make it more readable or usable, then it
> wouldn't have been an issue. But the reason you gave
> CVS for the change was primarily to make checkstyle
> happy:
>
> "extract methods nextDecimalPoint() and nextColo
--- Victor Mote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it is instructive that neither of you
> commented on whether the
> changes that were made actually improved the code or
> not.
>
> I think you both
> need to either 1) show that the code was better
> before I changed it,
If the reason you gave
Victor Mote wrote:
Peter B. West wrote:
Glen Mazza wrote:
Victor,
I noticed we had to break up a function to satisfy
Checkstyle's max method length size of 150 (
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-cvs&m=105806596213734&w=2).
That seems too constricted for our use--it's may
force parameter pass
Peter B. West wrote:
> Glen Mazza wrote:
> > Victor,
> >
> > I noticed we had to break up a function to satisfy
> > Checkstyle's max method length size of 150 (
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-cvs&m=105806596213734&w=2).
> > That seems too constricted for our use--it's may
> > force param
Glen Mazza wrote:
Victor,
I noticed we had to break up a function to satisfy
Checkstyle's max method length size of 150 (
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-cvs&m=105806596213734&w=2).
That seems too constricted for our use--it's may
force parameter passing of local variables where none
would ot
Victor,
I noticed we had to break up a function to satisfy
Checkstyle's max method length size of 150 (
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-cvs&m=105806596213734&w=2).
That seems too constricted for our use--it's may
force parameter passing of local variables where none
would otherwise be needed.
