rspec/rules/S925/comments-and-links.adoc

=== on 17 Sep 2014, 10:24:30 Freddy Mallet wrote:
@Ann, I would associate this rule to the "Reliability" SQALE characteristic and not to the "Efficiency" one because this is the main risk, this rule tries to mitigate. Moreover, I would slightly adjust the description to make it clear that from time to time, using recursion calls might be the best solution to solve an issue but that must be done really on purpose.

=== on 28 Sep 2014, 16:53:09 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2], [~freddy.mallet], I suggest to remove mention of indirect recursion from description, because proper detection of indirect recursion requires significant efforts in implementation.

=== on 30 Sep 2014, 13:01:33 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~evgeny.mandrikov] will future improvements make indirect recursion easier to spot?

=== on 2 Oct 2014, 20:22:16 Ann Campbell wrote:
Indirect recursion code (in case we ever add this back in):

----
// Indirect recursion
int fact(int num) {
  if (num > 0) {
    num = num * fact2(x - 1);  // Noncompliant; fact2 calls this function
  }
  return num;
}

int fact2(int num) {
  if (num > 0) {
    num = num * fact(num - 1);  // Noncompliant; fact calls this function
  }
  return num
}
----

=== on 2 Oct 2014, 21:04:57 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] interesting question - no ETA, but one day - why not.