On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Jesse Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm having trouble buying this. The rule makes a lot of sense for non- > private methods because the potential set of callers is effectively > unbounded and some callers may want to call the method with a base > class.
This would make sense if the rule was in Design category, which afaik would focus on the external usage (callers) of the method. But the rule is Maintainability, no such limitation of scope is necessary neither desirable imo, the callers being bounded is unrelated to the method's specialization and does not necessarily mean it is less subject to reuse (by methods added to the class or in derived types [ie. hint for "make protected" refactoring]). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
