32 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
32 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
=== on 11 May 2015, 12:06:21 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
I modified the noncompliant-compliant comment in the code. Apart from this, this rule is now implemented for C#
|
|
|
|
=== on 11 May 2015, 13:53:01 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
FYI [~tamas.vajk] there's no need to explicitly mark anything Compliant in the Compliant Solution (updated).
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the corrections.
|
|
|
|
=== on 20 May 2015, 15:23:21 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
updated per \http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SONARCSANA-66
|
|
|
|
=== on 22 May 2015, 09:33:57 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
Changed the ``++String++`` to ``++string++`` in the samples, but otherwise it LGTM.
|
|
|
|
=== on 29 May 2015, 08:46:38 Massimo PALADIN wrote:
|
|
\[~tamas.vajk] assigning to you so you remember to change the C# implementation to skip public methods.
|
|
|
|
=== on 3 Jun 2015, 20:06:41 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
\[~tamas.vajk] I originally wrote this rule for C# & the description included performance reasons. Were those also not appropriate in C#?
|
|
|
|
=== on 4 Jun 2015, 12:51:45 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
\[~massimo.paladin] thanks. I checked in the C# implementation that we are filtering out ``++virtual++`` methods.
|
|
|
|
=== on 4 Jun 2015, 12:57:17 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
\[~ann.campbell.2] Calling a ``++static++`` method is slightly more performant than calling a non-``++static++`` one, because there is no need to pass the ``++this++`` reference. But the performance difference is tiny if any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found this on the topic:
|
|
|
|
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12279438/performance-of-static-methods-vs-instance-methods
|
|
|