rspec/rules/S2761/comments-and-links.adoc

81 lines
3.3 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

=== Related: RSPEC-3491
=== On 2015-03-24T18:51:43Z Evgeny Mandrikov Wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] regarding title - I think that would be better to narrow it down to "unary prefix operators".
Regarding example - it won't compile, because
{noformat}
---i;
{plus}{plus}+i;
{noformat}
is the same as
{noformat}
--(-i);
{plus}{plus}(+i);
{noformat}
and both ``++-i++`` and ``{plus}i`` are not assignable r-values, thus can't be used for unary ``++--++`` and ``{plus}{plus}``. And seems that description also should be adjusted taking this into account.
=== On 2015-03-25T20:19:25Z Evgeny Mandrikov Wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] I don't think that we should exclude prefix increment and decrement, because so far I don't see good reasons to write ``{plus}{plus}({plus}{plus}i)`` instead of ``++i += 2++``.
=== On 2015-03-26T16:27:45Z Ann Campbell Wrote:
your turn
=== On 2015-03-26T18:34:35Z Evgeny Mandrikov Wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] LGTM, thanks!
=== On 2015-03-26T18:36:34Z Evgeny Mandrikov Wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] just one question - why targeting only C, {cpp}, Objective-C ?
=== On 2015-03-26T18:38:01Z Evgeny Mandrikov Wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] and ouch - just noticed that there is parameter to ignore two bangs, which is first of all seems to be relevant only for C-Family and second - I believe that we discussed to go without it and see feedback.
=== On 2015-03-27T11:51:06Z Ann Campbell Wrote:
I've moved the parameter to the C-Family subtask. I suppose the comment thread (now deleted) on the bootstrap document was ambiguous. I thought you were okay to give a try with. We can delete it altogether if you like.
Re langauges, good question. Corrected
=== On 2015-03-27T12:13:38Z Evgeny Mandrikov Wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] my point was - let's remove parameter at all. After first implementation always easier to add than to remove.
=== On 2015-03-27T15:12:07Z Ann Campbell Wrote:
done
=== On 2015-07-22T12:27:14Z Tamas Vajk Wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] I've added a third message.
=== On 2015-07-22T12:56:55Z Tamas Vajk Wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] I've updated the rule title according to our discussion with [~dinesh.bolkensteyn] and [~freddy.mallet]. I've left the C family exception intact, but we shouldn't implement that for other languages as it raises many question.
* Does this rule recognizes typos? ``{plus}{plus}{plus}{plus}i`` is hardly a typo.
* Why don't we handle ``{plus}\-{plus}\-6`` as well? Why are we restricting the rule to consecutively repeated unary prefix operators? ``+++-+-++`` is also repeated.
* Why don't we handle all useless prefix operators? Such as ``+++6++``.
* Should we handle ``++!(!expression)++`` as well? No we shouldn't, because that is not a typo.
=== On 2015-07-27T10:49:21Z Dinesh Bolkensteyn Wrote:
Discussed with [~evgeny.mandrikov] [~ann.campbell.2] [~freddy.mallet] and myself
=== On 2015-07-27T12:21:58Z Ann Campbell Wrote:
I've made a few edits [~dinesh.bolkensteyn]
=== On 2015-07-27T14:25:53Z Ann Campbell Wrote:
\[~dinesh.bolkensteyn] with this upgraded to Critical/bug, is Maintainability still the appropriate SQALE char?
=== On 2015-07-27T14:32:52Z Dinesh Bolkensteyn Wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] good point - I've update the RSPEC.
=== On 2018-02-16T17:37:19Z Alban Auzeill Wrote:
Irrelevant for Swift, error: unary operators may not be juxtaposed; parenthesize inner expression