rspec/rules/S3252/comments-and-links.adoc

=== relates to: S2209

=== on 8 Jul 2015, 17:54:05 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~nicolas.peru] I'm thinking this is applicable to Java, right?

=== on 20 Jul 2015, 11:34:14 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] I've modified the description and the sample a bit.

=== on 20 Jul 2015, 14:11:36 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~tamas.vajk] would it also be acceptable to do this?

----
  {
    Count++;
  }
----

i.e. should we add a version of that as an alternate compliant solution?

=== on 21 Jul 2015, 19:15:01 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] [~tamas.vajk] why this is not subtask of RSPEC-2209? which one should be implemented in C-Family?

=== on 22 Jul 2015, 06:25:20 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] yes, you could use ``Count{plus}{plus}``, but we shouldn't promote that. And as [~evgeny.mandrikov] pointed out there is a separate rule for that. Note that in C# you couldn't write ``++this.Count++``, or ``++myInstance.Count++``. 

=== on 22 Jul 2015, 06:27:45 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~evgeny.mandrikov] I don't think that we should merge the two RSPECs. RSPEC-2209 says "static" members should be accessed statically. And here we are doing exactly that, but through a derived class.

=== on 22 Jul 2015, 07:02:31 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
\[~tamas.vajk] then why RSPEC-2209 marked as "replaced by" this one?

=== on 22 Jul 2015, 07:14:55 Nicolas Peru wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] Looks good for java. I let you sort out in which subtask or rspec this should go but principle is ok for me.

=== on 22 Jul 2015, 07:42:12 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~evgeny.mandrikov] Good question. I haven't seen that link. We should probably ask [~freddy.mallet] who linked the two.

=== on 23 Jul 2015, 08:51:44 Ann Campbell wrote:
I've swapped in a 'related' link instead.

=== on 31 Jul 2015, 11:13:34 Ann Campbell wrote:
Rejected for C# because already implemented by Visual Studio, Roslyn ID "IDE0001"