On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Jesse Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The rationale here is that unnecessary > specialization makes it "harder to reuse and/or extend the method in > derived types", but neither of these apply for private methods.
Though the rationale may not be completely clear on this, the rule should apply to private methods imo. For instance, it can detect unnecessary specialized overloads (including a private overload of a derived public/protected method). Since "harder to reuse" does not really imply the case above, I guess the rationale would be clearer/broader as : "It reduces reusability and makes the method harder to extend." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Gendarme" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gendarme?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
