commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gary Gregory" <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com>
Subject RE: [lang] Revisiting empty statements one more time (last time I promise)
Date Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:29:35 GMT
> } catch (SomeException ignored) {

Interesting thought! Somehow, I do not think that checkstyle can do
that. Can it?

Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sebb [mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 10:23 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [lang] Revisiting empty statements one more time (last
time I
> promise)
> 
> How about:
> 
> try
> {
> ...
> } catch (SomeException ignored) {
>  // We do nothing here because the try block checked
>  // the widget and logged an error in the fizbang.
> }
> 
> i.e. use a special variable name that can then be checked in the
compiled
> code.
> 
> S.
> On 7/4/05, Gary Gregory <ggregory@seagullsoftware.com> wrote:
> > Hello:
> >
> > I am against using a lone ";". IMHO I think that what shows up in an
AST
> > is irrelevant in this case and actually a problem with the source
> > checking tool. Let's think about the real problem, which I claim is
> > this:
> >
> > try {
> >  // a
> >  // bunch
> >  // of
> >  // stuff
> > } catch (SomeException e) {
> > }
> >
> > My claim: Undocumented empty blocks and especially empty catch
blocks
> > are a BAD THING. I have Eclipse set up to give a compile warning on
> > "undocumented empty blocks" and on "empty statements". Of course,
not
> > everyone uses Eclipse and whatever source-checking we use tools will
not
> > have the same features as Eclipse.
> >
> > What you really want, I claim, is this:
> >
> > } catch (SomeException e) {
> >  // We do nothing here because the try block checked
> >  // the widget and logged an error in the fizbang.
> > }
> >
> > Allowing the following is no good IMO as there is no explanation:
> >
> > } catch (SomeException e) {
> >  ;
> > }
> >
> > And this is no good either IMO:
> >
> > } catch (SomeException e) {
> >  ;
> >  // We do nothing here because the try block checked
> >  // the widget and logged an error in the fizbang.
> > }
> >
> > I want a source checking tool to tell me about undocumented empty
blocks
> > because that is a maintenance problem. As long as there is no
comment,
> > there is a problem IMO. Allowing solo-; is just plain old confusing
to
> > me and does NOT add any value to the source.
> >
> > As I've stated before, because some tools need to have the source
> > massaged a certain way is not a good reason to muck up the source,
it
> > just points to a deficiency in the tool.
> >
> > I hope the above convinces folks too ;-)
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Steven Caswell [mailto:steven.caswell@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 9:17 AM
> > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > > Subject: [lang] Revisiting empty statements one more time (last
time I
> > > promise)
> > >
> > > Gary and Stephen (and anyone else who might care ;)
> > >
> > > I'd like to take one more stab at convincing you guys that an
empty
> > > statement denoted by a semicolon would be a better approach to
> > > indicate no action than just using a comment. I promise I'll move
on
> > > if this is not convincing enough.
> > >
> > > So here we go:
> > > - Empty statement is defined by the language so while it may look
odd
> > > it is in fact a valid Java statement
> > > - Since it is a legal Java statement, it is parsable and shows up
in
> > > ASTs. Comments are discarded and do not show up in ASTs
> > > - Any tool that uses an AST approach to examining source
constructs
> > > (such as PMD) can be told to look for and handle an empty
statement.
> > > Tools that use ASTs cannot be told to look for comments.
> > >
> > > IMHO, having the statement parsable and recognizable by tools
gives
> > > the most flexibility at a pretty small price. The empty statement
> > > doesn't affect logic at all, and doesn't affect performance in the
> > > tests I've done. It seems a small price to pay (a bit of
adjustment in
> > > reading the code) for the benefit.
> > >
> > > If a line with a single semicolon is not acceptable, is there some
> > > other parsable construct that would be?
> > >
> > > Thanks for the indulgence.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Steven Caswell
> > > steven.caswell@gmail.com
> > >
> > > Take back the web - http://www.mozilla.org
> > >
> > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message