Hello Jesse, Another great idea - but same comment, as previous email, for "SideEffect" versus "Impure"*
* feedback appreciated from everyone on the list :) On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 15:24 -0700, Jesse Jones wrote: > This is a companion to my earlier rule. It's designed to catch code > like this: > > // This is really bad. > Debug.Assert(text[++i] == ' '); > > and > > // This will probably work, but it's definitely not intended and may > // hide bugs. > Debug.Assert(flag = flag2); > > The idea here is that the rule should check for calls to a > conditionally compiled method and complain if an expression used to > compute an argument stores a value into a local, argument, or field. > > I think the only germane C# expressions are pre/post-increment, > decrement, and assign. The new operator is the only other possibility > I see, but I think we'd see way too many false positives if we > included it. I think that locals are more likely to bring false positives (than new), since some will be defined (e.g. in #if DEBUG blocks) specifically for that purpose. It may be worth to include both (locals and new) to see how much false positives you get. Then either drop them (if really bad) or drop the confidence to low. Sebastien --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
