apex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Priyanka Gugale <priya...@datatorrent.com>
Subject Re: continuation indentation
Date Tue, 03 Nov 2015 06:47:39 GMT
+1 for next line.
Some annotations have parameters as well, having such annotations on same
line as of variables/methods will not be readable.

-Priyanka

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Thomas Weise <thomas@datatorrent.com>
wrote:

> I would like to see field annotations on separate line, too.
>
> --
> sent from mobile
> On Nov 2, 2015 10:15 PM, "Vlad Rozov" <v.rozov@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>
> > We also need to agree on annotation placement. I suggest that all
> > annotations except for parameter and variables annotations are placed on
> a
> > separate line.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Vlad
> >
> > On 10/29/15 17:48, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> >
> >> I believe checkstyle currently does not enforce any indentation for the
> >> while() construct and unfortunately the following is considered valid:
> >>
> >>   public boolean foo()
> >>   {
> >>     while (baz() ||
> >>                         foo() ||
> >>                  bar()) {
> >>       foo();
> >>       bar();
> >>     }
> >>     return true;
> >>   }
> >>
> >> I am not sure that there is consistency in a way how current alignment
> is
> >> done for function declaration or invocation.
> >>
> >> To avoid block issue putting "{" on a new line will help, but we already
> >> agreed on a different style for blocks where "{" is on the same line.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> Vlad
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/29/15 16:46, David Yan wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think most of the existing code in Apex tries to align with the
> >>> operator
> >>> in the original line, instead of a fixed 2 extra spaces, in the
> >>> continuation lines.
> >>>
> >>> Adding a blank line after while statement is not an enforced rule, and
> we
> >>> should take this opportunity to get this right.
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Chandni Singh<chandni@datatorrent.com
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi David,
> >>>>
> >>>> Wrapping indentation of '2' comes from the existing code in Apex
> core. I
> >>>> think in your example you can just add a blank line after while
> >>>> statement
> >>>> and that avoids confusion.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> while (baz() ||
> >>>>    foo() ||
> >>>>    bar()) {
> >>>>
> >>>>    foo();
> >>>>    bar();
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> Chandni
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:14 PM, David Yan<david@datatorrent.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry I might have missed the prior discussion about continuation
> >>>>> indentation.
> >>>>> I think continuation indentation should not be 2 because it would
> align
> >>>>> with the block indentation and can cause confusion.
> >>>>> For example:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> while (baz() ||
> >>>>>    foo() ||
> >>>>>    bar()) {
> >>>>>    foo();
> >>>>>    bar();
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> vs
> >>>>>
> >>>>> while (baz() ||
> >>>>>      foo() ||
> >>>>>      bar()) {
> >>>>>    foo();
> >>>>>    bar();
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Chandni Singh<
> chandni@datatorrent.com
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The convention that we adopted for wrapping is
> >>>>>> public void test(int a,
> >>>>>>      int b,
> >>>>>>      int c)
> >>>>>> Continuation indentation is set to 2 more (4 from the start
of line)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> extra
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> space.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't think prematurely wrapping helps readability. In Ram's
> example
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> when
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> there are comments then yes it helps but I am talking about
> scenarios
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> where
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> there aren't comments.
> >>>>>> I think just seeing a lot of empty space and scrolling more
doesn't
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> include
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> readability.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Chandni
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:58 PM, David Yan<david@datatorrent.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm +1 on 120 since I'm using a tall screen to code now. :)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Did we discuss how the code should be indented for lines
that break
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> because
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> of the limit?
> >>>>>>> For example,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> public void test(int a,
> >>>>>>>      int b,
> >>>>>>>      int c)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> public void test(int a,
> >>>>>>>                   int b,
> >>>>>>>                   int c)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The first one uses a fixed width of 4 extra spaces to indent
the
> >>>>>>> continuations, and you won't need to add spaces to the continuation
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> lines
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> if you rename "test" to be "foo" or "somelongfunctionname".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But the second one looks better to the eye.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Also, should the operator be at the end of the line or at
the
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> beginning
> >>>>
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> the line?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For example:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> if (a ||
> >>>>>>>      b &&
> >>>>>>>      c)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> if (a
> >>>>>>>    || b
> >>>>>>>    && c)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> David
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Siyuan Hua<siyuan@datatorrent.com
> >
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +1 for 160 for 4k monitors
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Timothy Farkas <
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> tim@datatorrent.com
> >>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +1 for 120
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Chandni Singh <
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> chandni@datatorrent.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> As part of the discussion below it was brought
out that we need
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> improve
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> the readability of our code and therefore impose
a maximum line
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> limit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you have a preference for maximum length of a line
in the
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> code,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> then
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> please voice it now.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So far Brennon, Ram, Vlad prefer 120.
> >>>>>>>>>> I am with Thomas on 160.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This rule can be enforced by checkstyle. However
I have also
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> noticed
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> prematurely wrapping lines, for example,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> public void tes(int t,
> >>>>>>>>>>                           int x,
> >>>>>>>>>>                            int z);
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This shouldn't be allowed as well. However checkstyle
cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> enforce
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So it's the responsibility of developers and
reviewers to
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> correct
> >>>>
> >>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>> Chandni
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Chandni Singh
<
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> chandni@datatorrent.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do we have a consensus on line length?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Chandni
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Vlad Rozov
<
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It depends, some screen are tall, not wide
:-) . I tried 160
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> my
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> tall
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> screen and it looks OK, but I use smaller font
size. My
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> recommendation
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> to keep it to 120.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/15 15:38, Thomas Weise wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How about being a bit more generous
with line length: 160?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Screens
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> pretty wide nowadays..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for documentation as part of
PR review. Documentation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> present but also helpful. Maybe
we can enforce presence for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> newly
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> added
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> classes by tracking count of existing violations?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:38 PM,
Munagala Ramanath <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ram@datatorrent.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, 120 line length max is good.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, agree we need to find some
way to enforce javadocs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ram
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:45
AM, York, Brennon <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brennon.York@capitalone.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For 1 and 2 I¹ve made a
JIRA to track
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://malhar.atlassian.net/browse/APEX-204).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For 3) I definitely agree
we need line wraps. Understand
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> everyone
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different length monitors, but,
as a community, we should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> standard moving forward as this becomes a community-owned
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> project.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> How
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> does 120 sound?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For 4) if we want to start
treating Apex as an Apache
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> owned
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community that uses it we need
to start working *for* the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community /
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> developers who are going to contribute to it,
not merely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the people currently working
on it will be the only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> primary
> >>>>
> >>>>> drivers.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won¹t engender growth or
community engagement. If nothing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> else
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be prepared to open our
doors to new ideas and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> project, not make it more difficult through obfuscated
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> code.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> hasn¹t
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> been done to this point and that¹s fine,
but moving
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward I
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> should take a concerted look and take this
as an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> clean
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up / document it. It will
only get harder as the project
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gains
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> momentum.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, if this causes failures,
that¹s a problem for us to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> accept,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> and fix.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/15, 10:19 AM, "Chandni
Singh" <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> chandni@datatorrent.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) This is a bug and will
fix this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Another bug and will
fix this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) We don't have a line
limit because everyone uses
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> length
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> monitor and some prefer a much longer line.
However I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> we
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least have a minimum length
limit and only beyond this a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> line
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrapped.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Earlier javadocs
were strictly added to api and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
> >>>>
> >>>>> classes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are hardly any for engine,
bufferserver modules. Adding
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> mean
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> much higher number of pre-existing failures.
I am not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much
> >>>>
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> favor
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as the lineage
is concerned, these were mostly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> google-checks and modified for the style we adopted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also
> >>>>
> >>>>> referred
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> sun_checks and picked a few from there which
we needed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015
at 8:42 AM, Ganelin, Ilya
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Ilya.Ganelin@capitalone.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All - there are some
issues I¹ve already run into with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>
> >>>>> CodeStyle/CheckStyle settings. I suggest we start a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JIRA
> >>>>
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> track
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless you have a preferred
approach.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) CheckStyle dictates
that chained method calls be on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> lines
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also dictates that
a space may not precede a period.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>
> >>>>> below
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> thus
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Foo.bar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>            .cat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Continuation
Indent is set to 4 in CheckStyle but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> >>>>
> >>>>> to 2
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> default
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in CodeStyle
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) We should really
enforce line limits (for the sake
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>
> >>>>> readability)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should therefore
amend the wrapping behavior of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods.
> >>>>
> >>>>> However,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require updating
CheckStyle as well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) We should enforce
JavaDocs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As an aside, could
someone possibly speak to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lineage
> >>>>
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> CheckStyle
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and CodeStyle settings
that we¹re presently using
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside
> >>>>
> >>>>> Apex?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Did
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come from published settings
(e.g. Google) or are these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>
> >>>>> in-house?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Appreciate any input, thanks!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>>> The information contained in this e-mail is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confidential
> >>>>
> >>>>> and/or
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> >>>>
> >>>>> only
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> used
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> solely in performance of work or services
for Capital
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> information
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transmitted herewith
is intended only for use by the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> entity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to which it is addressed.
If the reader of this message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> intended
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retransmission,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> dissemination, distribution, copying or other
use of,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>
> >>>>> taking
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action in reliance
upon this information is strictly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prohibited.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have received this communication
in error, please contact
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> sender
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delete the material from
your computer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>>> The information contained in this e-mail is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confidential
> >>>>
> >>>>> and/or
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> >>>>
> >>>>> only
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> used
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> solely in performance of work or services
for Capital
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> information
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transmitted herewith
is intended only for use by the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> entity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to which it is addressed.
If the reader of this message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> intended
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retransmission,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> dissemination, distribution, copying or other
use of,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>
> >>>>> taking
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action in reliance
upon this information is strictly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prohibited.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have received this communication
in error, please contact
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> sender
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delete the material from
your computer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>>> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and/or
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> used
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> solely in performance of work or services for
Capital
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> One.
> >>>>
> >>>>> The
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> information
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> transmitted herewith is intended
only for use by the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> entity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to which it is addressed.
If the reader of this message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> intended
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> recipient, you are hereby notified
that any review,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> retransmission,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> dissemination, distribution, copying or other use
of, or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> taking
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> action in reliance upon this information
is strictly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> prohibited.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ...
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message