rspec/rules/S818/comments-and-links.adoc

=== deprecates: S1129

=== is related to: S1129

=== on 31 Mar 2015, 19:06:23 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] implementation seems more complete (SQALE, description) than this spec.

=== on 31 Mar 2015, 19:06:46 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
Also I believed that this rule is implemented in Java or at least applicable.

=== on 2 Oct 2015, 10:17:53 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] The message contains upper-case with a dash, while none of the other occurrences use the dash. Is this on purpose? Also, the description doesn't explain why we should upper-case ``++f++``. Shouldn't we add something like "For consistency, all literal suffixes should be upper-case."

=== on 28 Jun 2016, 08:14:56 Michael Piefel wrote:
Whether ``++d++`` and ``++f++`` must be upper-case is quite debatable; it’s a matter of style and personal preference. I have yet to see a font where ``++D++`` and ``++0++`` really get mixed up; but this would even be in favour of letting it be lower-case.


This should be made configurable. I do not fancy changing a big codebase to comply to this; and neither do I want to give up the check on ``++l++`` versus ``++L++``.

=== on 28 Jun 2016, 15:08:24 Michael Gumowski wrote:
Thanks for your feedback [~piefel]. We updated the JAVA part of the rule (RSPEC-3339) in order to add a parameter allowing the rule to only focus on long. 

See corresponding JIRA ticket SONARJAVA-1755.


For next time, please use directly our mailing list (\sonarqube@googlegroups.com) rather than directly posting into JIRA tickets. It will allow other members of the community to participate to discussions.

=== on 9 Mar 2018, 16:06:05 Janos Gyerik wrote:
Irrelevant for Go. There are no such nonsensical suffixes for numbers.