rspec/rules/S2953/csharp/comments-and-links.adoc

=== relates to: S1201

=== on 22 May 2015, 09:54:56 Tamas Vajk wrote:
LGTM

=== on 9 Jun 2015, 09:05:39 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] I've changed all occurrences of "override" to "implement". I think it is better this way.

=== on 9 Jun 2015, 13:46:11 Ann Campbell wrote:
okay, thanks [~tamas.vajk]

=== on 18 Jun 2015, 11:41:33 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] I've added an exception. This is a usual pattern in C#. You can read about it here: \https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b1yfkh5e(v=vs.110).aspx

=== on 18 Jun 2015, 12:00:49 Ann Campbell wrote:
okay [~tamas.vajk]

=== on 4 Aug 2015, 18:14:10 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~tamas.vajk] I've just mapped this to FxCop's ImplementIDisposableCorrectly, but I believe that rule is broader than this one.

=== on 5 Aug 2015, 13:23:50 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] Yes, it seems to me too that it is doing more. I'm not sure if we would want to add more disposable rules, or cover all the cases of this FxCop rule in this RSPEC.

=== on 20 Nov 2019, 10:31:27 Costin Zaharia wrote:
We should add an exception in this rule for https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/csharp-8#disposable-ref-structs[disposable ref structs] introduced in C# 8.