=== on 28 Jan 2015, 19:06:53 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~dinesh.bolkensteyn] please take a look at this description, which is copied from Nemo. It doesn't quite make sense to me & reads as a hasty copy/paste of a related rule. 

=== on 8 May 2015, 15:27:04 Dinesh Bolkensteyn wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] The noncompliant ``++foo;++`` can be seen as a ``++foo++`` procedure call. However, it actually is the label of the previous ``++BEGIN .. END++`` block, because the ``++END++`` was not terminated by a semicolon.


This could potentially reveal a bug in the code.


To avoid any confusion, the label should be on the same line as the ``++END++``

=== on 8 May 2015, 17:48:54 Ann Campbell wrote:
Here's my confusion, [~dinesh.bolkensteyn]: the title is about semicolons and the description is about what line the end-block label is on. So... which should change?


Also, I've updated the code samples a little. Please look them over again.

=== on 11 May 2015, 09:07:24 Dinesh Bolkensteyn wrote:
Make a suggestion [~ann.campbell.2] - i think the title could be something like ``++Block "END" and semicolon ";" should be on the same line++``

=== on 11 May 2015, 09:10:02 Dinesh Bolkensteyn wrote:
I've slightly updated the descriptions again [~ann.campbell.2] - I think it now should make sense

=== on 11 May 2015, 13:45:22 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~dinesh.bolkensteyn] I gave up and tested this rule against the Noncompliant example to verify where the issue would be marked. I've updated the rule based on that. Please double-check me.

=== on 11 May 2015, 14:09:55 Dinesh Bolkensteyn wrote:
Perfect

