[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: Re[6]: [jdt-core-dev] Re: What should Eclipse compiler default settings be ?
|
I see where you're going... it is true that when the method signature is
contractual it is hard to use all arguments.
Would you mind entering a bug defect for this one ?
|---------+------------------------------>
| | Chris Grindstaff |
| | <chrisg@appliedReas|
| | oning.com> |
| | Sent by: |
| | jdt-core-dev-admin@|
| | eclipse.org |
| | |
| | |
| | 10/22/2002 03:44 PM|
| | Please respond to |
| | jdt-core-dev |
| | |
|---------+------------------------------>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: jdt-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| cc: |
| Subject: Re[6]: [jdt-core-dev] Re: What should Eclipse compiler default settings be ? |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Tuesday, October 22, 2002, 5:21:55 AM, Philippe Mulet wrote:
PM> Now it makes perfect sense. Maybe the argument warning should only
occur if
PM> the method has a body... do you agree ?
That would certainly handle some of the cases, hard to say what
percentage exactly.
There would still be the "problem" of the method having a body and not
referring to any of the augments because the method is an overridden
or interface-method. I found these cases happened a lot when
subclassing things like SourceViewerConfiguration.
A case that would handle methods like these would be to exclude those
methods that are overriding/implementing another method. However that
seems like it could result in too many missed cases.
Chris
--
Chris Grindstaff
chrisg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | www.appliedReasoning.com
_______________________________________________
jdt-core-dev mailing list
jdt-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jdt-core-dev
